CVI
Home Help [Feedback] [For Subscribers] [Archive] [Search] [Contents]
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Copyright Information
Right arrow Books from ASM Press
Right arrow MicrobeWorld
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Hooper, N. E.
Right arrow Articles by Passen, S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Hooper, N. E.
Right arrow Articles by Passen, S.

Clinical and Diagnostic Laboratory Immunology, Jul 1994, 477-481, Vol 1, No. 4
Copyright © 1994 by the American Society for Microbiology. All rights reserved.

Evaluation of a Treponema pallidum enzyme immunoassay as a screening test for syphilis

NE Hooper, DC Malloy and S Passen
Maryland Medical Laboratory, Inc., Baltimore 21227, USA.

The CAPTIA Syphilis-G enzyme immunoassay for the detection of antibodies to Treponema pallidum was evaluated as a screening test for syphilis in comparison with the standard rapid plasma reagin (RPR) test. One thousand samples were tested, and the standard fluorescent treponemal antibody absorption test and the standard microhemmaglutination test were used to confirm the presence of treponemal antibodies. Diagnosis of syphilis was based on traditional standard serology results. Clinical data used in the diagnosis of patients whose samples yielded conflicting results were provided by physicians. Initially, 7 patients whose samples were reactive in the RPR test and 14 patients whose samples yielded positive or equivocal results in the CAPTIA Syphilis-G test were diagnosed as not being infected. After discrepancies due to technical problems were reconciled, samples from six patients remained reactive in the RPR test and that from one patient remained positive in the CAPTIA Syphilis-G test. In addition, seven patients whose samples were nonreactive in the RPR test and two patients whose samples were negative in the CAPTIA Syphilis-G test were diagnosed as having untreated syphilis. After discrepancies were reconciled, samples from five patients remained nonreactive in the RPR test and none remained negative in the CAPTIA Syphilis-G test. Final results indicate that the specificities are 99.4 and 99.9%, respectively. In addition to the improved sensitivity and specificity of the CAPTIA Syphilis-G screen, other potential benefits of this assay lead us to believe that this method could serve as a better screening tool than the RPR test.


This article has been cited by other articles:




Home Help [Feedback] [For Subscribers] [Archive] [Search] [Contents]
Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. Clin. Microbiol. Rev. Infect. Immun.
J. Clin. Microbiol. J. Virol. ALL ASM JOURNALS

Copyright © 1994 by the American Society for Microbiology. All rights reserved.