Linked Life Data

3294888

Source:http://linkedlifedata.com/resource/pubmed/id/3294888

Statements in which the resource exists as a subject.
PredicateObject
rdf:type
lifeskim:mentions
pubmed:issue
5
pubmed:dateCreated
1987-7-17
pubmed:abstractText
Two antigen detection systems (MicroTrak [MT], Syva Co., Palo Alto, Calif.; and Chlamydiazyme [CZ], Abbott Laboratories, North Chicago, Ill.) were compared with semiquantitative culture for diagnosis of chlamydial infection in 1,059 patients. Cultures were done on microtiter plates and blind passaged once. Culture-negative but CZ- or MT-positive specimens were recultured. True positives were positive by either initial or repeat cultures. Of 827 nonpregnant and 231 pregnant patients, 9.1 and 12.1%, respectively, had positive cultures. Overall sensitivity of the initial culture was 48.5% without passage and 86.4% with passage. The sensitivity of CZ was 67%. The sensitivity of MT in our laboratory was 50%; however, further review of these specimens by Syva employees gave a combined sensitivity of 71.6%. MT and CZ were more sensitive for pregnant patients (MT, 84.6%; CZ, 85.7%) than for nonpregnant patients (MT, 65.5%; CZ, 60.0%). All the tests had specificities above 95%. Of the specimens that were positive after initial culture without subculture, MT-negative specimens had a mean of 3.7 inclusions in culture, and MT-positive specimens had a mean of 24.8 (P = 0.002); CZ-negative specimens had a mean of 4.3 inclusions, and CZ-positive specimens had a mean of 20.0 (P = 0.026). In addition, cultures of specimens from pregnant patients had more inclusions than did those from gynecology patients, but this was not statistically significant (P = 0.096). No method is ideal; however, MT and CZ were less sensitive than was this culture system for detecting chlamydial infection in patients in gynecology clinics and were of comparable sensitivity for pregnant patients.
pubmed:grant
pubmed:commentsCorrections
http://linkedlifedata.com/resource/pubmed/commentcorrection/3294888-3089086, http://linkedlifedata.com/resource/pubmed/commentcorrection/3294888-3517035, http://linkedlifedata.com/resource/pubmed/commentcorrection/3294888-3517052, http://linkedlifedata.com/resource/pubmed/commentcorrection/3294888-3519787, http://linkedlifedata.com/resource/pubmed/commentcorrection/3294888-3536994, http://linkedlifedata.com/resource/pubmed/commentcorrection/3294888-3711304, http://linkedlifedata.com/resource/pubmed/commentcorrection/3294888-3888022, http://linkedlifedata.com/resource/pubmed/commentcorrection/3294888-3911605, http://linkedlifedata.com/resource/pubmed/commentcorrection/3294888-6091511, http://linkedlifedata.com/resource/pubmed/commentcorrection/3294888-6357824, http://linkedlifedata.com/resource/pubmed/commentcorrection/3294888-6386864, http://linkedlifedata.com/resource/pubmed/commentcorrection/3294888-6622887, http://linkedlifedata.com/resource/pubmed/commentcorrection/3294888-7019235
pubmed:language
eng
pubmed:journal
pubmed:citationSubset
IM
pubmed:chemical
pubmed:status
MEDLINE
pubmed:month
May
pubmed:issn
0095-1137
pubmed:author
pubmed:issnType
Print
pubmed:volume
25
pubmed:owner
NLM
pubmed:authorsComplete
Y
pubmed:pagination
868-72
pubmed:dateRevised
2009-11-18
pubmed:meshHeading
pubmed:year
1987
pubmed:articleTitle
Diagnosis of chlamydial infection in women attending antenatal and gynecologic clinics.
pubmed:publicationType
Journal Article, Clinical Trial, Comparative Study, Research Support, U.S. Gov't, P.H.S., Controlled Clinical Trial