4.7 Article

Enhancing the specificity of the COBAS AMPLICOR CT/NG test for Neisseria gonorrhoeae by retesting specimens with equivocal results

Journal

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MICROBIOLOGY
Volume 39, Issue 9, Pages 3092-3098

Publisher

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/JCM.39.9.3092-3098.2001

Keywords

-

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The COBAS AMPLICOR CT/NG test for Neisseria gonorrhoeae cross-reacts with certain strains of nonpathogenic Neisseria species. In some strains, the target sequence is identical to that of N. gonorrhoeae, whereas other strains have a small number of mismatches within the regions recognized by the primers or probe used in the COBAS AMPLICOR NG test. These cross-reactive strains are occasionally present in urogenital specimens, causing false-positive results in the COBAS AMPLICOR NG test. Analysis of the data generated in a large multicenter clinical trial showed that 2.9% of the specimens gave signals between A(660)s of 0.2 and 3.5 but that one-half of these equivocal specimens did not contain N. gonorrhoeae. Most of these equivocal specimens were correctly classified as true positive or true negative by retesting in duplicate and defining a PCR-positive result as two of three results with an A(660) of greater than or equal to2.0. If specimens had been classified as positive or negative based on a single test result using a cutoff of an A(660) of 0.2, specificity would have ranged from 96.2 to 98.9% depending on specimen type, sex, and presence of symptoms. By employing the equivocal zone-retesting algorithm, specificity increased to 98.6 to 99.9% with little effect (0.1 to 4.9% decrease) on sensitivity in most specimen types, enabling the test to achieve a positive predictive value of at least 90% in populations with a prevalence of 4% or higher. In lower-prevalence populations, the test could be used to screen for presumptive infections that would have to be confirmed by an independent test.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available