The Pediatric infectious disease journal · 2001
Comparison of the urine-based ligase chain reaction test to culture for detection of Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhoeae in pediatric sexual abuse victims.
Сравнительное 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.
Girardet R G, McClain N, Lahoti S, Cheung K, Hartwell B, McNeese M
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The urine-based ligase chain reaction (LCR) assay for Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhoeae is an attractive alternative to culture because of the relative ease with which specimens may be collected, transported and processed. In addition LCR offers superior sensitivity while maintaining high specificity when compared with culture in various studies of adolescents and adults. A study comparing LCR to culture has not been published concerning children.
METHODS: We conducted a prospective, comparison trial of the urine-based LCR test for Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhoeae as compared with culture among children at a specialized referral center for evaluation for alleged sexual assault. Of the 1,010 children presenting to the center during the study period, 164 met the study requirements for risk of a sexually transmissible disease and collection of both culture and urine LCR specimens.
RESULTS: Eight specimens tested positive by both methods for C. trachomatis. Another 10 specimens tested positive for C. trachomatis by LCR but were negative by culture. No patient with a negative LCR for C. trachomatis had a positive culture. For N. gonorrhoeae 2 specimens tested positive by both methods, and 3 specimens tested positive by LCR but negative by culture. No patient with a negative LCR for N. gonorrhoeae had a positive culture.
CONCLUSIONS: The low prevalence of disease in the study population precluded statistical analysis. LCR may prove to be as specific and more sensitive than culture for the detection of C. trachomatis and N. gonorrhoeae in children. Further studies are needed.
METHODS: We conducted a prospective, comparison trial of the urine-based LCR test for Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhoeae as compared with culture among children at a specialized referral center for evaluation for alleged sexual assault. Of the 1,010 children presenting to the center during the study period, 164 met the study requirements for risk of a sexually transmissible disease and collection of both culture and urine LCR specimens.
RESULTS: Eight specimens tested positive by both methods for C. trachomatis. Another 10 specimens tested positive for C. trachomatis by LCR but were negative by culture. No patient with a negative LCR for C. trachomatis had a positive culture. For N. gonorrhoeae 2 specimens tested positive by both methods, and 3 specimens tested positive by LCR but negative by culture. No patient with a negative LCR for N. gonorrhoeae had a positive culture.
CONCLUSIONS: The low prevalence of disease in the study population precluded statistical analysis. LCR may prove to be as specific and more sensitive than culture for the detection of C. trachomatis and N. gonorrhoeae in children. Further studies are needed.