Comparison of Automated Treponemal and Nontreponemal Test Algorithms as First-Line Syphilis Screening Assays
Automated Mediace Treponema pallidum latex agglutination (TPLA) and Mediace rapid plasma reagin (RPR) assays are used by many laboratories for syphilis diagnosis. This study compared the results of the traditional syphilis screening algorithm and a reverse algorithm using automated Mediace RPR or Me...
Saved in:
Published in | Annals of laboratory medicine Vol. 36; no. 1; pp. 23 - 27 |
---|---|
Main Authors | , , , |
Format | Journal Article |
Language | English |
Published |
Korea (South)
The Korean Society for Laboratory Medicine
01.01.2016
대한진단검사의학회 |
Subjects | |
Online Access | Get full text |
Cover
Loading…
Abstract | Automated Mediace Treponema pallidum latex agglutination (TPLA) and Mediace rapid plasma reagin (RPR) assays are used by many laboratories for syphilis diagnosis. This study compared the results of the traditional syphilis screening algorithm and a reverse algorithm using automated Mediace RPR or Mediace TPLA as first-line screening assays in subjects undergoing a health checkup.
Samples from 24,681 persons were included in this study. We routinely performed Mediace RPR and Mediace TPLA simultaneously. Results were analyzed according to both the traditional algorithm and reverse algorithm. Samples with discordant results on the reverse algorithm (e.g., positive Mediace TPLA, negative Mediace RPR) were tested with Treponema pallidum particle agglutination (TPPA).
Among the 24,681 samples, 30 (0.1%) were found positive by traditional screening, and 190 (0.8%) by reverse screening. The identified syphilis rate and overall false-positive rate according to the traditional algorithm were lower than those according to the reverse algorithm (0.07% and 0.05% vs. 0.64% and 0.13%, respectively). A total of 173 discordant samples were tested with TPPA by using the reverse algorithm, of which 140 (80.9%) were TPPA positive.
Despite the increased false-positive results in populations with a low prevalence of syphilis, the reverse algorithm detected 140 samples with treponemal antibody that went undetected by the traditional algorithm. The reverse algorithm using Mediace TPLA as a screening test is more sensitive for the detection of syphilis. |
---|---|
AbstractList | Background: Automated Mediace Treponema pallidum latex agglutination (TPLA) and Mediace rapid plasma reagin (RPR) assays are used by many laboratories for syphilis diagnosis. This study compared the results of the traditional syphilis screening algorithm and a reverse algorithm using automated Mediace RPR or Mediace TPLA as first-line screening assays in subjects undergoing a health checkup.
Methods: Samples from 24,681 persons were included in this study. We routinely performed Mediace RPR and Mediace TPLA simultaneously. Results were analyzed according to both the traditional algorithm and reverse algorithm. Samples with discordant results on the reverse algorithm (e.g., positive Mediace TPLA, negative Mediace RPR) were tested with Treponema pallidum particle agglutination (TPPA).
Results: Among the 24,681 samples, 30 (0.1%) were found positive by traditional screening, and 190 (0.8%) by reverse screening. The identified syphilis rate and overall false-positive rate according to the traditional algorithm were lower than those according to the reverse algorithm (0.07% and 0.05% vs. 0.64% and 0.13%, respectively). A total of 173 discordant samples were tested with TPPA by using the reverse algorithm, of which 140 (80.9%) were TPPA positive.
Conclusions: Despite the increased false-positive results in populations with a low prevalence of syphilis, the reverse algorithm detected 140 samples with treponemal antibody that went undetected by the traditional algorithm. The reverse algorithm using Mediace TPLA as a screening test is more sensitive for the detection of syphilis. KCI Citation Count: 13 Automated Mediace Treponema pallidum latex agglutination (TPLA) and Mediace rapid plasma reagin (RPR) assays are used by many laboratories for syphilis diagnosis. This study compared the results of the traditional syphilis screening algorithm and a reverse algorithm using automated Mediace RPR or Mediace TPLA as first-line screening assays in subjects undergoing a health checkup.BACKGROUNDAutomated Mediace Treponema pallidum latex agglutination (TPLA) and Mediace rapid plasma reagin (RPR) assays are used by many laboratories for syphilis diagnosis. This study compared the results of the traditional syphilis screening algorithm and a reverse algorithm using automated Mediace RPR or Mediace TPLA as first-line screening assays in subjects undergoing a health checkup.Samples from 24,681 persons were included in this study. We routinely performed Mediace RPR and Mediace TPLA simultaneously. Results were analyzed according to both the traditional algorithm and reverse algorithm. Samples with discordant results on the reverse algorithm (e.g., positive Mediace TPLA, negative Mediace RPR) were tested with Treponema pallidum particle agglutination (TPPA).METHODSSamples from 24,681 persons were included in this study. We routinely performed Mediace RPR and Mediace TPLA simultaneously. Results were analyzed according to both the traditional algorithm and reverse algorithm. Samples with discordant results on the reverse algorithm (e.g., positive Mediace TPLA, negative Mediace RPR) were tested with Treponema pallidum particle agglutination (TPPA).Among the 24,681 samples, 30 (0.1%) were found positive by traditional screening, and 190 (0.8%) by reverse screening. The identified syphilis rate and overall false-positive rate according to the traditional algorithm were lower than those according to the reverse algorithm (0.07% and 0.05% vs. 0.64% and 0.13%, respectively). A total of 173 discordant samples were tested with TPPA by using the reverse algorithm, of which 140 (80.9%) were TPPA positive.RESULTSAmong the 24,681 samples, 30 (0.1%) were found positive by traditional screening, and 190 (0.8%) by reverse screening. The identified syphilis rate and overall false-positive rate according to the traditional algorithm were lower than those according to the reverse algorithm (0.07% and 0.05% vs. 0.64% and 0.13%, respectively). A total of 173 discordant samples were tested with TPPA by using the reverse algorithm, of which 140 (80.9%) were TPPA positive.Despite the increased false-positive results in populations with a low prevalence of syphilis, the reverse algorithm detected 140 samples with treponemal antibody that went undetected by the traditional algorithm. The reverse algorithm using Mediace TPLA as a screening test is more sensitive for the detection of syphilis.CONCLUSIONSDespite the increased false-positive results in populations with a low prevalence of syphilis, the reverse algorithm detected 140 samples with treponemal antibody that went undetected by the traditional algorithm. The reverse algorithm using Mediace TPLA as a screening test is more sensitive for the detection of syphilis. Automated Mediace Treponema pallidum latex agglutination (TPLA) and Mediace rapid plasma reagin (RPR) assays are used by many laboratories for syphilis diagnosis. This study compared the results of the traditional syphilis screening algorithm and a reverse algorithm using automated Mediace RPR or Mediace TPLA as first-line screening assays in subjects undergoing a health checkup. Samples from 24,681 persons were included in this study. We routinely performed Mediace RPR and Mediace TPLA simultaneously. Results were analyzed according to both the traditional algorithm and reverse algorithm. Samples with discordant results on the reverse algorithm (e.g., positive Mediace TPLA, negative Mediace RPR) were tested with Treponema pallidum particle agglutination (TPPA). Among the 24,681 samples, 30 (0.1%) were found positive by traditional screening, and 190 (0.8%) by reverse screening. The identified syphilis rate and overall false-positive rate according to the traditional algorithm were lower than those according to the reverse algorithm (0.07% and 0.05% vs. 0.64% and 0.13%, respectively). A total of 173 discordant samples were tested with TPPA by using the reverse algorithm, of which 140 (80.9%) were TPPA positive. Despite the increased false-positive results in populations with a low prevalence of syphilis, the reverse algorithm detected 140 samples with treponemal antibody that went undetected by the traditional algorithm. The reverse algorithm using Mediace TPLA as a screening test is more sensitive for the detection of syphilis. |
Author | Chae, Seok Lae Chung, Jae-Woo Huh, Hee Jin Park, Seong Yeon |
AuthorAffiliation | 2 Department of Internal Medicine, Dongguk University Ilsan Hospital, Goyang, Korea 1 Department of Laboratory Medicine, Dongguk University Ilsan Hospital, Goyang, Korea |
AuthorAffiliation_xml | – name: 2 Department of Internal Medicine, Dongguk University Ilsan Hospital, Goyang, Korea – name: 1 Department of Laboratory Medicine, Dongguk University Ilsan Hospital, Goyang, Korea |
Author_xml | – sequence: 1 givenname: Hee Jin surname: Huh fullname: Huh, Hee Jin organization: Department of Laboratory Medicine, Dongguk University Ilsan Hospital, Goyang, Korea – sequence: 2 givenname: Jae-Woo surname: Chung fullname: Chung, Jae-Woo organization: Department of Laboratory Medicine, Dongguk University Ilsan Hospital, Goyang, Korea – sequence: 3 givenname: Seong Yeon surname: Park fullname: Park, Seong Yeon organization: Department of Internal Medicine, Dongguk University Ilsan Hospital, Goyang, Korea – sequence: 4 givenname: Seok Lae surname: Chae fullname: Chae, Seok Lae organization: Department of Laboratory Medicine, Dongguk University Ilsan Hospital, Goyang, Korea |
BackLink | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26522755$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed https://www.kci.go.kr/kciportal/ci/sereArticleSearch/ciSereArtiView.kci?sereArticleSearchBean.artiId=ART002058141$$DAccess content in National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) |
BookMark | eNp1kc1v3CAQxVGVqvlo7j1VHHuxCwzG9qWStUraSKtEarZnhDHepcHggrfS_vf1ZtNNE6lcBjG_N0_MO0cnPniD0AdKcgAOn5UbckaoyEHkNGfwBp0xBjyDivKT452IU3SZ0k8yH0Eoq8k7dMpEwVhZFGfILcIwqmhT8Dj0uNlOYVCT6fAqmnH2G5TDynf4Nvjp-WVl0oQbtw7RTpshYZXwtY1pypbWG3y_GzfW2YTvdTTGW7_GTUpql96jt71yyVw-1Qv04_pqtfiWLe--3iyaZaZ5XUxZC60ohdacCqGJJlACq6qCgmGVAdK1irNS8dKAMaXWBS1MQXgn-rbTAioFF-jTYa6PvXzQVgZlH-s6yIcom--rG0k5IzWf0S8HdNy2g-m0mb-pnByjHVTcPQpfdrzdzGN-Sy7qEqB-9hpj-LWd9yIHm7RxTnkTtknSktVQMCB7r4__eh1N_qYxA-QA6BhSiqY_IpTIfeZyzlzuM5cgJJUMZol4JdF2UpPdx6Ws-7_wDx02soU |
CitedBy_id | crossref_primary_10_1128_JCM_01003_18 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_clinbiochem_2018_09_013 crossref_primary_10_1099_jmm_0_000886 crossref_primary_10_18663_tjcl_1445369 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_diagmicrobio_2020_115081 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_plabm_2017_04_007 crossref_primary_10_7883_yoken_JJID_2021_164 crossref_primary_10_1099_jmm_0_000559 crossref_primary_10_1371_journal_pone_0212893 crossref_primary_10_1136_sextrans_2020_054437 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_cca_2018_10_038 crossref_primary_10_1136_sextrans_2023_055973 crossref_primary_10_1093_labmed_lmad078 crossref_primary_10_25208_0042_4609_2016_92_3_69_74 crossref_primary_10_1038_s41372_019_0387_9 crossref_primary_10_1093_cid_ciy198 crossref_primary_10_1177_0033354920967302 crossref_primary_10_5858_2016_0110_CP crossref_primary_10_1016_j_ijid_2018_12_016 crossref_primary_10_1128_JCM_02544_15 crossref_primary_10_17945_kjbt_2017_28_3_225 |
Cites_doi | 10.1097/QCO.0b013e32834e9a3c 10.1002/jcla.20268 10.3343/kjlm.2008.28.3.207 10.1093/cid/ciu087 10.1136/bmjopen-2013-003347 10.1258/ijsa.2008.008510 10.3343/lmo.2014.4.1.36 10.1136/sti.79.4.323 10.1128/JCM.00078-15 10.1128/JCM.05636-11 10.3343/kjlm.2008.28.4.312 10.1128/JCM.06286-11 10.1093/infdis/jir524 10.1128/JCM.06347-11 10.3343/kjlm.2009.29.4.331 |
ContentType | Journal Article |
Copyright | The Korean Society for Laboratory Medicine. 2016 |
Copyright_xml | – notice: The Korean Society for Laboratory Medicine. 2016 |
DBID | AAYXX CITATION CGR CUY CVF ECM EIF NPM 7X8 5PM ACYCR |
DOI | 10.3343/alm.2016.36.1.23 |
DatabaseName | CrossRef Medline MEDLINE MEDLINE (Ovid) MEDLINE MEDLINE PubMed MEDLINE - Academic PubMed Central (Full Participant titles) Korean Citation Index |
DatabaseTitle | CrossRef MEDLINE Medline Complete MEDLINE with Full Text PubMed MEDLINE (Ovid) MEDLINE - Academic |
DatabaseTitleList | MEDLINE - Academic MEDLINE |
Database_xml | – sequence: 1 dbid: NPM name: PubMed url: https://proxy.k.utb.cz/login?url=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed sourceTypes: Index Database – sequence: 2 dbid: EIF name: MEDLINE url: https://proxy.k.utb.cz/login?url=https://www.webofscience.com/wos/medline/basic-search sourceTypes: Index Database |
DeliveryMethod | fulltext_linktorsrc |
Discipline | Medicine |
EISSN | 2234-3814 |
EndPage | 27 |
ExternalDocumentID | oai_kci_go_kr_ARTI_142094 PMC4697339 26522755 10_3343_alm_2016_36_1_23 |
Genre | Journal Article Comparative Study |
GroupedDBID | --- 5-W 53G 8JR 8XY 9ZL AAYXX ACYCR ADBBV ADRAZ AENEX ALMA_UNASSIGNED_HOLDINGS AOIJS BAWUL CITATION C~G DIK DYU EF. GX1 HYE KQ8 M48 PGMZT RPM CGR CUY CVF ECGQY ECM EIF EMOBN NPM 7X8 5PM M~E OK1 OZF |
ID | FETCH-LOGICAL-c495t-b3b676cc4166c0c0373288513e28e30dba427a47e3ee7cc515e504d6fbdc638a3 |
IEDL.DBID | M48 |
ISSN | 2234-3806 2234-3814 |
IngestDate | Tue Nov 21 21:41:27 EST 2023 Thu Aug 21 18:31:48 EDT 2025 Fri Jul 11 08:50:30 EDT 2025 Thu Apr 03 07:05:49 EDT 2025 Tue Jul 01 03:11:32 EDT 2025 Thu Apr 24 23:06:35 EDT 2025 |
IsDoiOpenAccess | true |
IsOpenAccess | true |
IsPeerReviewed | true |
IsScholarly | true |
Issue | 1 |
Keywords | Reverse algorithm Automated TPLA Automated RPR Syphilis screening algorithm Syphilis |
Language | English |
License | This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
LinkModel | DirectLink |
MergedId | FETCHMERGED-LOGICAL-c495t-b3b676cc4166c0c0373288513e28e30dba427a47e3ee7cc515e504d6fbdc638a3 |
Notes | ObjectType-Article-2 SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1 ObjectType-Feature-1 content type line 23 G704-000327.2016.36.1.014 |
OpenAccessLink | http://journals.scholarsportal.info/openUrl.xqy?doi=10.3343/alm.2016.36.1.23 |
PMID | 26522755 |
PQID | 1729352304 |
PQPubID | 23479 |
PageCount | 5 |
ParticipantIDs | nrf_kci_oai_kci_go_kr_ARTI_142094 pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_4697339 proquest_miscellaneous_1729352304 pubmed_primary_26522755 crossref_primary_10_3343_alm_2016_36_1_23 crossref_citationtrail_10_3343_alm_2016_36_1_23 |
ProviderPackageCode | CITATION AAYXX |
PublicationCentury | 2000 |
PublicationDate | 2016-01-01 |
PublicationDateYYYYMMDD | 2016-01-01 |
PublicationDate_xml | – month: 01 year: 2016 text: 2016-01-01 day: 01 |
PublicationDecade | 2010 |
PublicationPlace | Korea (South) |
PublicationPlace_xml | – name: Korea (South) |
PublicationTitle | Annals of laboratory medicine |
PublicationTitleAlternate | Ann Lab Med |
PublicationYear | 2016 |
Publisher | The Korean Society for Laboratory Medicine 대한진단검사의학회 |
Publisher_xml | – name: The Korean Society for Laboratory Medicine – name: 대한진단검사의학회 |
References | Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (10.3343/alm.2016.36.1.23_ref3) 2011; 60 Huh (10.3343/alm.2016.36.1.23_ref8) 2014; 4 Jost (10.3343/alm.2016.36.1.23_ref19) 2013; 3 Noh (10.3343/alm.2016.36.1.23_ref11) 2008; 28 Kim (10.3343/alm.2016.36.1.23_ref12) 2009; 29 Park (10.3343/alm.2016.36.1.23_ref17) 2011; 204 Song (10.3343/alm.2016.36.1.23_ref7) 2008; 28 Huh (10.3343/alm.2016.36.1.23_ref10) 2009; 16 Binnicker (10.3343/alm.2016.36.1.23_ref2) 2012; 25 González (10.3343/alm.2016.36.1.23_ref21) 2015; 53 French (10.3343/alm.2016.36.1.23_ref5) 2009; 20 Marangoni (10.3343/alm.2016.36.1.23_ref16) 2009; 23 Egglestone (10.3343/alm.2016.36.1.23_ref4) 2000; 3 10.3343/alm.2016.36.1.23_ref6 Binnicker (10.3343/alm.2016.36.1.23_ref13) 2012; 50 Loeffelholz (10.3343/alm.2016.36.1.23_ref18) 2012; 50 Cho (10.3343/alm.2016.36.1.23_ref15) 2003; 79 Workowski (10.3343/alm.2016.36.1.23_ref1) 2010; 59 Lipinsky (10.3343/alm.2016.36.1.23_ref14) 2012; 50 Watanabe (10.3343/alm.2016.36.1.23_ref9) 2011; 59 Tong (10.3343/alm.2016.36.1.23_ref20) 2014; 58 21307823 - MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2011 Feb 11;60(5):133-7 22090407 - J Clin Microbiol. 2012 Jan;50(1):148-50 25609729 - J Clin Microbiol. 2015 Apr;53(4):1361-4 24550376 - Clin Infect Dis. 2014 Apr;58(8):1116-24 11014025 - Commun Dis Public Health. 2000 Sep;3(3):158-62 24056483 - BMJ Open. 2013 Sep 19;3(9):e003347 19386965 - Int J STD AIDS. 2009 May;20(5):300-9 19140205 - J Clin Lab Anal. 2009;23(1):1-6 18728382 - Korean J Lab Med. 2008 Aug;28(4):312-8 12902586 - Sex Transm Infect. 2003 Aug;79(4):323-4 22156894 - Curr Opin Infect Dis. 2012 Feb;25(1):79-85 18594173 - Korean J Lab Med. 2008 Jun;28(3):207-13 19726896 - Korean J Lab Med. 2009 Aug;29(4):331-7 21930610 - J Infect Dis. 2011 Nov;204(9):1297-304 21476292 - Rinsho Byori. 2011 Feb;59(2):115-20 22090405 - J Clin Microbiol. 2012 Jan;50(1):2-6 22259212 - J Clin Microbiol. 2012 Apr;50(4):1501 21160459 - MMWR Recomm Rep. 2010 Dec 17;59(RR-12):1-110 |
References_xml | – volume: 25 start-page: 79 year: 2012 ident: 10.3343/alm.2016.36.1.23_ref2 publication-title: Curr Opin Infect Dis doi: 10.1097/QCO.0b013e32834e9a3c – volume: 23 start-page: 1 year: 2009 ident: 10.3343/alm.2016.36.1.23_ref16 publication-title: J Clin Lab Anal doi: 10.1002/jcla.20268 – volume: 28 start-page: 207 year: 2008 ident: 10.3343/alm.2016.36.1.23_ref7 publication-title: Korean J Lab Med doi: 10.3343/kjlm.2008.28.3.207 – volume: 60 start-page: 133 year: 2011 ident: 10.3343/alm.2016.36.1.23_ref3 publication-title: MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep – volume: 58 start-page: 1116 year: 2014 ident: 10.3343/alm.2016.36.1.23_ref20 publication-title: Clin Infect Dis doi: 10.1093/cid/ciu087 – volume: 3 start-page: e003347 year: 2013 ident: 10.3343/alm.2016.36.1.23_ref19 publication-title: BMJ Open doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2013-003347 – volume: 20 start-page: 300 year: 2009 ident: 10.3343/alm.2016.36.1.23_ref5 publication-title: Int J STD AIDS doi: 10.1258/ijsa.2008.008510 – volume: 4 start-page: 36 year: 2014 ident: 10.3343/alm.2016.36.1.23_ref8 publication-title: Lab Med Online doi: 10.3343/lmo.2014.4.1.36 – volume: 59 start-page: 115 year: 2011 ident: 10.3343/alm.2016.36.1.23_ref9 publication-title: Rinsho Byori – volume: 79 start-page: 323 year: 2003 ident: 10.3343/alm.2016.36.1.23_ref15 publication-title: Sex Transm Infect doi: 10.1136/sti.79.4.323 – volume: 53 start-page: 1361 year: 2015 ident: 10.3343/alm.2016.36.1.23_ref21 publication-title: J Clin Microbiol doi: 10.1128/JCM.00078-15 – volume: 50 start-page: 148 year: 2012 ident: 10.3343/alm.2016.36.1.23_ref13 publication-title: J Clin Microbiol doi: 10.1128/JCM.05636-11 – volume: 28 start-page: 312 year: 2008 ident: 10.3343/alm.2016.36.1.23_ref11 publication-title: Korean J Lab Med doi: 10.3343/kjlm.2008.28.4.312 – ident: 10.3343/alm.2016.36.1.23_ref6 – volume: 59 start-page: 1 volume-title: Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR), Recommendations and reports year: 2010 ident: 10.3343/alm.2016.36.1.23_ref1 – volume: 3 start-page: 158 year: 2000 ident: 10.3343/alm.2016.36.1.23_ref4 publication-title: Commun Dis Public Health – volume: 50 start-page: 1501 year: 2012 ident: 10.3343/alm.2016.36.1.23_ref14 publication-title: J Clin Microbiol doi: 10.1128/JCM.06286-11 – volume: 204 start-page: 1297 year: 2011 ident: 10.3343/alm.2016.36.1.23_ref17 publication-title: J Infect Dis doi: 10.1093/infdis/jir524 – volume: 50 start-page: 2 year: 2012 ident: 10.3343/alm.2016.36.1.23_ref18 publication-title: J Clin Microbiol doi: 10.1128/JCM.06347-11 – volume: 16 start-page: 236 year: 2009 ident: 10.3343/alm.2016.36.1.23_ref10 publication-title: Dongguk J Med – volume: 29 start-page: 331 year: 2009 ident: 10.3343/alm.2016.36.1.23_ref12 publication-title: Korean J Lab Med doi: 10.3343/kjlm.2009.29.4.331 – reference: 24550376 - Clin Infect Dis. 2014 Apr;58(8):1116-24 – reference: 12902586 - Sex Transm Infect. 2003 Aug;79(4):323-4 – reference: 19140205 - J Clin Lab Anal. 2009;23(1):1-6 – reference: 24056483 - BMJ Open. 2013 Sep 19;3(9):e003347 – reference: 21307823 - MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2011 Feb 11;60(5):133-7 – reference: 11014025 - Commun Dis Public Health. 2000 Sep;3(3):158-62 – reference: 22090407 - J Clin Microbiol. 2012 Jan;50(1):148-50 – reference: 22090405 - J Clin Microbiol. 2012 Jan;50(1):2-6 – reference: 21930610 - J Infect Dis. 2011 Nov;204(9):1297-304 – reference: 25609729 - J Clin Microbiol. 2015 Apr;53(4):1361-4 – reference: 21476292 - Rinsho Byori. 2011 Feb;59(2):115-20 – reference: 18594173 - Korean J Lab Med. 2008 Jun;28(3):207-13 – reference: 18728382 - Korean J Lab Med. 2008 Aug;28(4):312-8 – reference: 21160459 - MMWR Recomm Rep. 2010 Dec 17;59(RR-12):1-110 – reference: 22259212 - J Clin Microbiol. 2012 Apr;50(4):1501 – reference: 19386965 - Int J STD AIDS. 2009 May;20(5):300-9 – reference: 19726896 - Korean J Lab Med. 2009 Aug;29(4):331-7 – reference: 22156894 - Curr Opin Infect Dis. 2012 Feb;25(1):79-85 |
SSID | ssj0000601290 |
Score | 2.1504607 |
Snippet | Automated Mediace Treponema pallidum latex agglutination (TPLA) and Mediace rapid plasma reagin (RPR) assays are used by many laboratories for syphilis... Background: Automated Mediace Treponema pallidum latex agglutination (TPLA) and Mediace rapid plasma reagin (RPR) assays are used by many laboratories for... |
SourceID | nrf pubmedcentral proquest pubmed crossref |
SourceType | Open Website Open Access Repository Aggregation Database Index Database Enrichment Source |
StartPage | 23 |
SubjectTerms | Algorithms Anti-Bacterial Agents - therapeutic use Humans Latex Fixation Tests Original Reagins - blood Syphilis - diagnosis Syphilis - drug therapy Syphilis - microbiology Treponema pallidum - isolation & purification 병리학 |
Title | Comparison of Automated Treponemal and Nontreponemal Test Algorithms as First-Line Syphilis Screening Assays |
URI | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26522755 https://www.proquest.com/docview/1729352304 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/PMC4697339 https://www.kci.go.kr/kciportal/ci/sereArticleSearch/ciSereArtiView.kci?sereArticleSearchBean.artiId=ART002058141 |
Volume | 36 |
hasFullText | 1 |
inHoldings | 1 |
isFullTextHit | |
isPrint | |
ispartofPNX | Annals of Laboratory Medicine, 2016, 36(1), , pp.23-27 |
link | http://utb.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwfZ3bb9MwFMYtOiTEC-JOuUxG4oWHdEmd2M0DQmhiDKTyRKW-WbbjbNWyZCSpRP97vpOkpUOFp0iJHSc-vvw-X44ZexeaPBUOhdenoQ_iyM8CC7IPEmlVDkBNkm414fy7PF_E35bJ8s_26CEDm4PSjs6TWtTF5NfPzUdU-A-kOEUsTkxBW8ojORFyAsknRuwu-iVF1XQ-wH7fLneDLv1c5cGI5BlYAkgUbfzb66ZGZZ0fItC_F1Lu9UxnD9mDASn5p74MPGJ3fPmY3ZsPk-ZPWHG6O2uQVzk367YCpvqMk0fLqvTXiGzKjJdVuXcHCNpyU1xU9aq9vG64aXi-AioGxKW82dzQSEzD0epACaP_Q4DGbJqnbHH2-cfpeTAcshA4aKM2sMJKJZ0DmEkXulCQ9x5gmPDTmRdhZk08VSZWXnivnAP--CSMM5nbzKHuGvGMHeH7_AvGQWN5ZNFqQfbGIjep9DJNM6EycMDMxmN2ss1T7QYP5HQQRqGhRMggGgbRZBAtpI70VIzZ-12Mm977xn_CvoWZ9JVbaXKZTdeLSl_VGsLgKxTOFEIWYbZG1KhGNDdiSl-tGw2OS0U3Qj5mz3uj7lLclokxU7fMvQtA6d1-Uq4uO1fdsUyRG-nLf77zFbtPP9EP6rxmR2299m-AOa09ZqMvy-i4K8O_AQmu-60 |
linkProvider | Scholars Portal |
openUrl | ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info%3Aofi%2Fenc%3AUTF-8&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fsummon.serialssolutions.com&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Comparison+of+automated+treponemal+and+nontreponemal+test+algorithms+as+first-line+syphilis+screening+assays&rft.jtitle=Annals+of+laboratory+medicine&rft.au=Huh%2C+Hee+Jin&rft.au=Chung%2C+Jae+Woo&rft.au=Park%2C+Seong+Yeon&rft.au=Chae%2C+Seok+Lae&rft.date=2016-01-01&rft.eissn=2234-3814&rft.volume=36&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=23&rft_id=info:doi/10.3343%2Falm.2016.36.1.23&rft_id=info%3Apmid%2F26522755&rft.externalDocID=26522755 |
thumbnail_l | http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/lc.gif&issn=2234-3806&client=summon |
thumbnail_m | http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/mc.gif&issn=2234-3806&client=summon |
thumbnail_s | http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/sc.gif&issn=2234-3806&client=summon |