Journal of clinical microbiology · 2014
Head-to-head comparison of second-generation nucleic acid amplification tests for detection of Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhoeae on urine samples from female subjects and self-collected vaginal swabs.
Сравнительное исследованиеОценочное исследованиеСтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Chernesky Max, Jang Dan, Gilchrist Jodi, Hatchette Todd, Poirier André, Flandin Jean-Frederic, Smieja Marek, Ratnam Sam
Аннотация
In a comparison of 4 second-generation nucleic acid amplification tests performed with self-collected vaginal swab (SCVS) and first-void urine (FVU) specimens from 575 women, SCVS specimens indicated more infections than did FVU specimens in all assays. The prevalence rates were 9% (53/575 patients) for Chlamydia trachomatis and 2% (11/575 patients) for Neisseria gonorrhoeae. The clinical sensitivities for testing SCVS specimens for C. trachomatis were 98.1% on a Tigris system and 96.2% on a Panther system for the Aptima Combo 2 assay (Hologic Gen-Probe), 98.0% for the RealTime CT/NG assay on an m2000 instrument (Abbott), 90.6% for the ProbeTec CT/GC Q(x) assay on the Viper system (Becton Dickinson), and 84.6% for the cobas CT/NG assay on the cobas 4800 platform (Roche). Clinical sensitivities for C. trachomatis in FVU specimens were 88.7% (Tigris) and 88.0% (Panther) for the Aptima Combo 2 assay, 76.9% for the RealTime CT/NG assay, 75.5% for the ProbeTec CT/GC Q(x) assay, and 81.1% for the cobas CT/NG assay. Clinical sensitivities of the assays for N. gonorrhoeae, with limited positive results, ranged from 63.6% to 100%. Specificities for both infections ranged from 98.4 to 100%. Differences in analytical sensitivities and levels of molecular targets in clinical samples but not inhibitors of amplification may explain the differences in clinical sensitivities.