4.1 Article

Sensitivity requirements for the point of care diagnosis of Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhoeae in women

期刊

SEXUALLY TRANSMITTED INFECTIONS
卷 79, 期 5, 页码 363-368

出版社

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/sti.79.5.363

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background/objectives: Most current tests for Neisseria gonorrhoeae and Chlmydia trachomatis require the support of a laboratory, and results are not usually available before the patient has left the clinic. This delay can lead to patients not returning for treatment and may allow further STI transmission to occur. Current rapid point of care (POC) STI tests and the syndromic approach are less sensitive than gold standard tests, but allow treatment at the initial visit. This study estimates the required sensitivity of POC tests that ensures as many STIs are averted as with current gold standard tests. Methods: A mathematical model is developed to compare the STIs averted using different STI diagnostic methods. Data from Benin, South Africa, Tanzania, and England are used to explore how the required sensitivity differs between settings. Results: The required sensitivity of a POC test is low if there is significant STI transmission during the delay in treatment for the gold standard test and/or few women return for treatment. For example, the required sensitivity of a POC test for C trachomatis is 50% ( gold standard test sensitivity is 90%) if either 55% return for treatment and there is no STI transmission, or 80% return for treatment and 50% of infected women infect their partner during the delay in treatment. Furthermore, in these settings a POC test of moderate sensitivity can lead to significantly more STI averted than the gold standard test. Conclusions: These results support the use of moderate sensitivity POC tests in scenarios where many women will not return for treatment, and in populations where the delay in treatment would result in significant STI transmission.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据