Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Journal of Clinical Microbiology logoLink to Journal of Clinical Microbiology
. 1987 May;25(5):868–872. doi: 10.1128/jcm.25.5.868-872.1987

Diagnosis of chlamydial infection in women attending antenatal and gynecologic clinics.

J W Smith, R E Rogers, B P Katz, J F Brickler, P L Lineback, B Van der Pol, R B Jones
PMCID: PMC266106  PMID: 3294888

Abstract

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.

Full text

PDF
868

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Alexander E. R., Harrison H. R. Role of Chlamydia trachomatis in perinatal infection. Rev Infect Dis. 1983 Jul-Aug;5(4):713–719. doi: 10.1093/clinids/5.4.713. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Chernesky M. A., Mahony J. B., Castriciano S., Mores M., Stewart I. O., Landis S. J., Seidelman W., Sargeant E. J., Leman C. Detection of Chlamydia trachomatis antigens by enzyme immunoassay and immunofluorescence in genital specimens from symptomatic and asymptomatic men and women. J Infect Dis. 1986 Jul;154(1):141–148. doi: 10.1093/infdis/154.1.141. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Forbes B. A., Bartholoma N., McMillan J., Roefaro M., Weiner L., Welych L. Evaluation of a monoclonal antibody test to detect chlamydia in cervical and urethral specimens. J Clin Microbiol. 1986 Jun;23(6):1136–1137. doi: 10.1128/jcm.23.6.1136-1137.1986. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Howard L. V., Coleman P. F., England B. J., Herrmann J. E. Evaluation of chlamydiazyme for the detection of genital infections caused by Chlamydia trachomatis. J Clin Microbiol. 1986 Feb;23(2):329–332. doi: 10.1128/jcm.23.2.329-332.1986. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Jones M. F., Smith T. F., Houglum A. J., Herrmann J. E. Detection of Chlamydia trachomatis in genital specimens by the Chlamydiazyme test. J Clin Microbiol. 1984 Sep;20(3):465–467. doi: 10.1128/jcm.20.3.465-467.1984. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Jones R. B., Katz B. P., van der Pol B., Caine V. A., Batteiger B. E., Newhall W. J. Effect of blind passage and multiple sampling on recovery of Chlamydia trachomatis from urogenital specimens. J Clin Microbiol. 1986 Dec;24(6):1029–1033. doi: 10.1128/jcm.24.6.1029-1033.1986. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Jones R. B., Rabinovitch R. A., Katz B. P., Batteiger B. E., Quinn T. S., Terho P., Lapworth M. A. Chlamydia trachomatis in the pharynx and rectum of heterosexual patients at risk for genital infection. Ann Intern Med. 1985 Jun;102(6):757–762. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-102-6-757. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Lipkin E. S., Moncada J. V., Shafer M. A., Wilson T. E., Schachter J. Comparison of monoclonal antibody staining and culture in diagnosing cervical chlamydial infection. J Clin Microbiol. 1986 Jan;23(1):114–117. doi: 10.1128/jcm.23.1.114-117.1986. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Nettleman M. D., Jones R. B., Roberts S. D., Katz B. P., Washington A. E., Dittus R. S., Quinn T. S. Cost-effectiveness of culturing for Chlamydia trachomatis. A study in a clinic for sexually transmitted diseases. Ann Intern Med. 1986 Aug;105(2):189–196. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-105-2-189. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Schachter J. Immunodiagnosis of sexually transmitted disease. Yale J Biol Med. 1985 Sep-Oct;58(5):443–452. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Stamm W. E., Harrison H. R., Alexander E. R., Cles L. D., Spence M. R., Quinn T. C. Diagnosis of Chlamydia trachomatis infections by direct immunofluorescence staining of genital secretions. A multicenter trial. Ann Intern Med. 1984 Nov;101(5):638–641. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-101-5-638. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Thompson S. E., Washington A. E. Epidemiology of sexually transmitted Chlamydia trachomatis infections. Epidemiol Rev. 1983;5:96–123. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.epirev.a036266. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Yoder B. L., Stamm W. E., Koester C. M., Alexander E. R. Microtest procedure for isolation of Chlamydia trachomatis. J Clin Microbiol. 1981 Jun;13(6):1036–1039. doi: 10.1128/jcm.13.6.1036-1039.1981. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Journal of Clinical Microbiology are provided here courtesy of American Society for Microbiology (ASM)

RESOURCES