Comparison of Different Methods for the Detection of Antibodies to Chlamydia trachomatis in Human Sera

Nichterlein, Thomas; Recknagel, Rolf-Dieter; Brunnemann, H; Wehr, J.; Vogt, K H; Straube, Eberhard

doi:10.1016/s0934-8840(11)80697-3

Cited by 2 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, the results were not identical, possibly because of the different antigen obtention procedures (from intracellular inclusions or from extracellular elementary and reticulate bodies) used in the two tests. When compared to the reference test, CFT and CFT-ICFT sensitivities and especificities were considerably lower than those found in MIF in reference to IFI, which was in agreement with other author's reports on chlamydiosis in bovines (14) and in humans (11). Even if using the same antigen, the results obtained by these methods cannot be expected to be homogeneous.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

“…Effectively, in establishing this positivity threshold by calculating the mean of the absorbance values of all the sera negative in the IFI, introducing confidence limits f 3 times the standard deviation, with the ELISA test we obtained no false-negative results, and only 2.7 % (2 of 74, Table 1) false-positive. The specificity of ELISA is however very low (56.7 %), this result being comparable with literature data (6,11). This low specificity was due to the fact that most negative values found in the reference test appeared as dubious by the ELISA, since they fell within the interval confidence.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 86%

“…In our study the highest sensitivity was shown by ELISA (100 %), which was not in agreement with other authors' results (4,8,9,11,12). These differences can be attributed to the use of sera from different species : humans (4, 8, 11, 12) and goats (9, a different distribution of IF1 titres, the use of different antigens in the ELISA, and especially to the different method for calculating the positivity threshold and its confidence intervals for this test.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 81%

“…Basic parameters ( Efficacy was evaluated by determining the mean of sensitivity and specificity, without taking into account the weight of negative and positive results in the sample (11).…”

Section: Mathematical Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Comparison of Different Serological Methods for the Determination of Antibodies to Chlamydia psittaci in Pigeon Sera

Salinas

Caro

Cuello

1993

Journal of Veterinary Medicine, Series B

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary Several methods for detecting antibodies to Chlamydia psittaci using sera from pigeons were compared with regard to their sensitivity, specificity and efficacy. The reference method used was indirect immunofluorescence (IFI), which uses as antigen intracellular inclusions in McCoy cell monolayers. Indirect micro‐immunofluorescence (MIF) using as antigen C. psittaci cultured on yolk sacs of embryonated eggs, direct and indirect complement fixation tests (CFT and ICFT, respectively), and enzyme‐linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) were compared to the reference method. Indirect micro‐immunofluorescence proved to be the most efficient method, while ELISA was the most sensitive, though showing a very low specificity. No statistically significant difference was found in comparing the two complement fixation tests. The use of ICFT to check for the negative results obtained in CFT is questioned. Possible reasons for the different results with the methods used are discussed.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 86%