A comparison of rapid enzyme immunoassay tests for the detection of Chlamydia trachomatis cervical infections

Daron Gale Ferris, W. H. Martin, P. M. Fischer, L. J. Petry

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

9 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Two rapid enzyme immunoassay test kits were compared with culture for the detection of Chlamydia trachomatis endocervical infections. Endocervical samples for C trachomatis culture and the two enzyme immunoassay tests were evaluated from 502 county health department and Planned Parenthood patients. The prevalence of infection in this population was 12%. Sensitivity and specificity of the Abbott TestPack Chlamydia were 51.7% and 99.5%, respectively, and of the Kodak Surecell Chlamydia were 76.7% and 98.6%, respectively. The positive and negative predictive values for TestPack were 93.9% and 93.8%, and for Surecell were 88.5% and 96.9%, respectively. Additionally, an in vitro investigation was used to evaluate whether typical office staff (physicians, nurses, medical technicians, receptionists, and radiology technicians) were able to perform competently the tests in each kit. Office personnel tested 12 dilutions of a C trachomatis stock sample or negative control sample as unknowns for each kit in the in vitro investigation. There were no differences among office staff in performance when compared for each test kit. Selective use of these enzyme immunoassay tests for high-risk patients in a family practice population that has a high prevalence of patients with C trachomatis infection may be helpful when rapid test results are required and cultures are not feasible. After appropriate training, most physician office personnel were equally able to perform the enzyme immunoassay tests evaluated.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)597-601
Number of pages5
JournalJournal of Family Practice
Volume31
Issue number6
StatePublished - Dec 1 1990

Fingerprint

Chlamydia trachomatis
Immunoenzyme Techniques
Physicians' Offices
Chlamydia
Medical Receptionists
Infection
Family Practice
Radiology
Population
Nurses
Sensitivity and Specificity
Health
In Vitro Techniques

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health

Cite this

A comparison of rapid enzyme immunoassay tests for the detection of Chlamydia trachomatis cervical infections. / Ferris, Daron Gale; Martin, W. H.; Fischer, P. M.; Petry, L. J.

In: Journal of Family Practice, Vol. 31, No. 6, 01.12.1990, p. 597-601.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{c35731715820431d870c29c7bb710069,
title = "A comparison of rapid enzyme immunoassay tests for the detection of Chlamydia trachomatis cervical infections",
abstract = "Two rapid enzyme immunoassay test kits were compared with culture for the detection of Chlamydia trachomatis endocervical infections. Endocervical samples for C trachomatis culture and the two enzyme immunoassay tests were evaluated from 502 county health department and Planned Parenthood patients. The prevalence of infection in this population was 12{\%}. Sensitivity and specificity of the Abbott TestPack Chlamydia were 51.7{\%} and 99.5{\%}, respectively, and of the Kodak Surecell Chlamydia were 76.7{\%} and 98.6{\%}, respectively. The positive and negative predictive values for TestPack were 93.9{\%} and 93.8{\%}, and for Surecell were 88.5{\%} and 96.9{\%}, respectively. Additionally, an in vitro investigation was used to evaluate whether typical office staff (physicians, nurses, medical technicians, receptionists, and radiology technicians) were able to perform competently the tests in each kit. Office personnel tested 12 dilutions of a C trachomatis stock sample or negative control sample as unknowns for each kit in the in vitro investigation. There were no differences among office staff in performance when compared for each test kit. Selective use of these enzyme immunoassay tests for high-risk patients in a family practice population that has a high prevalence of patients with C trachomatis infection may be helpful when rapid test results are required and cultures are not feasible. After appropriate training, most physician office personnel were equally able to perform the enzyme immunoassay tests evaluated.",
author = "Ferris, {Daron Gale} and Martin, {W. H.} and Fischer, {P. M.} and Petry, {L. J.}",
year = "1990",
month = "12",
day = "1",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "31",
pages = "597--601",
journal = "Journal of Family Practice",
issn = "0094-3509",
publisher = "Appleton-Century-Crofts",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - A comparison of rapid enzyme immunoassay tests for the detection of Chlamydia trachomatis cervical infections

AU - Ferris, Daron Gale

AU - Martin, W. H.

AU - Fischer, P. M.

AU - Petry, L. J.

PY - 1990/12/1

Y1 - 1990/12/1

N2 - Two rapid enzyme immunoassay test kits were compared with culture for the detection of Chlamydia trachomatis endocervical infections. Endocervical samples for C trachomatis culture and the two enzyme immunoassay tests were evaluated from 502 county health department and Planned Parenthood patients. The prevalence of infection in this population was 12%. Sensitivity and specificity of the Abbott TestPack Chlamydia were 51.7% and 99.5%, respectively, and of the Kodak Surecell Chlamydia were 76.7% and 98.6%, respectively. The positive and negative predictive values for TestPack were 93.9% and 93.8%, and for Surecell were 88.5% and 96.9%, respectively. Additionally, an in vitro investigation was used to evaluate whether typical office staff (physicians, nurses, medical technicians, receptionists, and radiology technicians) were able to perform competently the tests in each kit. Office personnel tested 12 dilutions of a C trachomatis stock sample or negative control sample as unknowns for each kit in the in vitro investigation. There were no differences among office staff in performance when compared for each test kit. Selective use of these enzyme immunoassay tests for high-risk patients in a family practice population that has a high prevalence of patients with C trachomatis infection may be helpful when rapid test results are required and cultures are not feasible. After appropriate training, most physician office personnel were equally able to perform the enzyme immunoassay tests evaluated.

AB - Two rapid enzyme immunoassay test kits were compared with culture for the detection of Chlamydia trachomatis endocervical infections. Endocervical samples for C trachomatis culture and the two enzyme immunoassay tests were evaluated from 502 county health department and Planned Parenthood patients. The prevalence of infection in this population was 12%. Sensitivity and specificity of the Abbott TestPack Chlamydia were 51.7% and 99.5%, respectively, and of the Kodak Surecell Chlamydia were 76.7% and 98.6%, respectively. The positive and negative predictive values for TestPack were 93.9% and 93.8%, and for Surecell were 88.5% and 96.9%, respectively. Additionally, an in vitro investigation was used to evaluate whether typical office staff (physicians, nurses, medical technicians, receptionists, and radiology technicians) were able to perform competently the tests in each kit. Office personnel tested 12 dilutions of a C trachomatis stock sample or negative control sample as unknowns for each kit in the in vitro investigation. There were no differences among office staff in performance when compared for each test kit. Selective use of these enzyme immunoassay tests for high-risk patients in a family practice population that has a high prevalence of patients with C trachomatis infection may be helpful when rapid test results are required and cultures are not feasible. After appropriate training, most physician office personnel were equally able to perform the enzyme immunoassay tests evaluated.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0025675710&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0025675710&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

VL - 31

SP - 597

EP - 601

JO - Journal of Family Practice

JF - Journal of Family Practice

SN - 0094-3509

IS - 6

ER -