[Skip to Content]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
[Skip to Content Landing]
March 22, 1995

Sensitivity of Rapid Antigen Detection Tests for Chlamydia trachomatis Screening-Reply

Author Affiliations

University of Alabama at Birmingham
The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine Baltimore, Md
Snohomish Health District Everett, Wash

JAMA. 1995;273(12):918. doi:10.1001/jama.1995.03520360031025

In Reply.  —We are pleased that Dr Ferris and colleagues agree that C trachomatis antigen detection tests, which provide results rapidly while patients are still present in clinics, provide an appealing approach to augment efforts to control Chlamydia infections. As suggested by our study, even with less than optimal sensitivity, such a strategy would be useful for dealing with patients who may not return for treatment.Despite our agreement in concept, however, we remain unconvinced that the performance of any currently (or previously) available rapid chlamydial antigen detection test is sufficiently sensitive to recommend widespread use. Like Ferris and colleagues, we have conducted head-to-head comparisons of the TestPack and Surecell rapid chlamydial antigen detection tests. In a subsequent multicenter study in which one of us (E.W.H.) participated,1 the Surecell test performed only marginally (but not significantly) better than the TestPack. The combined sensitivities of the TestPack and Surecell tests

First Page Preview View Large
First page PDF preview
First page PDF preview