To the Editor.
—Control of Chlamydia trachomatis has been problematic. As demonstrated impressively by Dr Hook and colleagues,1 meaningful efforts must be comprehensive in scope and must consider the complete spectrum of interventions from prevention and diagnosis to treatment. We share similar interests in rapid C trachomatis testing.2-4 Because these rapid tests are commonly used in small clinics without formally trained laboratory staff, we have examined the effects of operator variability and training on test performance.4,5Our initial evaluation of rapid C trachomatis tests in 1989 clearly demonstrated performance differences between manufacturers.2 When compared with culture, the sensitivity of the Abbott TestPack Chlamydia (Abbott Park, Ill) was 51.7% and the Kodak Surecell Chlamydia test (Rochester, NY) was 76.7%. Our concern about this obvious discordance between the performance of these two rapid test products prompted a second investigation of three rapid tests4 during February to May
Ferris DG, Petry LJ, Fischer PM. Sensitivity of Rapid Antigen Detection Tests for Chlamydia trachomatis Screening. JAMA. 1995;273(12):917-918. doi:10.1001/jama.1995.03520360031024