<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="no" ?>
<rss version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>Habbema, L.</title>
    <link>http://repub.eur.nl/res/aut/13704/</link>
    <description>List of Publications</description>
    <language>en</language>
    
    <item>
      <title>Evaluation of Clearview and Magic Lite tests, polymerase chain reaction, and cell culture for detection of Chlamydia trachomatis in urogenital specimens (Article)</title>
      <link>http://repub.eur.nl/res/pub/8598/</link>
      <pubDate>1993-01-01T00:00:00Z</pubDate>
      <description>The Clearview Chlamydia test (CV; Unipath Ltd., Bedford, United Kingdom),
      the Magic Lite Chlamydia test (ML; CIBA Corning, Medfield, Mass.), a
      polymerase chain reaction (PCR), and cell culture (CC) were evaluated for
      detection of Chlamydia trachomatis in urogenital specimens. Specimens were
      collected from 283 men and 724 women visiting the outpatient clinic for
      Sexually Transmitted Diseases at the University Hospital Rotterdam,
      Rotterdam, The Netherlands. ML, PCR, and CC were all performed on the same
      sample to prevent swab-to-swab variability. CV was performed on a separate
      sample. Analysis of discordant results was performed by application of the
      following confirmatory assays: first, PCR on the CC, second, ML was
      repeated, and third, PCR was repeated by using a different DNA extraction
      protocol. If more than one test was positive, the sample was considered
      true positive. If only one test was positive, which was confirmed by the
      confirmatory assay, the sample was also considered true positive. By using
      these interpretations, the following results were obtained. The
      sensitivity and specificity of CV for samples from men were 60.4 and
      86.3%, respectively. For samples from women, these values were 62.3 and
      99.7%, respectively. The low specificity for samples from men was caused
      by unidentified substances in the swab that was used. The use of CV on
      samples from men is not recommended by the manufacturer. For samples from
      women, the specificity of CV was high, but the low sensitivity of CV
      limits its use for diagnostic purposes. The sensitivities of ML were low
      for samples from both men and women (68.8% and 50.9% respectively), while
      specificities were excellent for samples from both groups (100 and 99.9%,
      respectively). The low sensitivity of ML limits its diagnostic value. The
      PCR technique was highly specific for samples from both men (99.6%) and
      women (99.9%). The sensitivity of PCR, however, was unexpectedly low for
      samples from both groups (men, 87.5%; women, 79.2%), most likely because
      of the sample treatment method used. The sensitivity and specificity
      values of CC for samples from men were 95.8 and 100%, respectively. For
      samples from women, these values were 100 and 99.9%, respectively. In the
      present study, CC was the most reliable technique for the detection of C.
      trachomatis.</description>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>