You are seeing this message because your Web browser does not support basic Web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.


ABOUT JAMA
Advanced Search

Welcome   | My Account | E-mail Alerts | Access Rights | Sign In


  Vol. 255 No. 24, June 27, 1986 TABLE OF CONTENTS
  JAMA
  •  Online Features
  ORIGINAL CONTRIBUTIONS
 This Article
 •References
 •Full text PDF
 •Send to a friend
 • Save in My Folder
 •Save to citation manager
 •Permissions
 Citing Articles
 •Citation map
 •Citing articles on HighWire
 •Contact me when this article is cited
 Related Content
 •Similar articles in JAMA
 Social Bookmarking
  Add to CiteULike Add to Connotea Add to Del.icio.us Add to Digg Add to Reddit Add to Technorati Add to Twitter What's this?

Assessment of Neonatal Conjunctivitis With a Direct Immunofluorescent Monoclonal Antibody Stain for Chlamydia

Peter A. Rapoza, MD; Thomas C. Quinn, MD; Lou Ann Kiessling, MD; W. Richard Green, MD; Hugh R. Taylor, MD

JAMA. 1986;255(24):3369-3373.


Abstract

Chlamydial conjunctivitis was diagnosed by direct immunofluorescent monoclonal antibody staining of conjunctival smears in 46 of 100 consecutive neonates with conjunctivitis. The remaining 54 infants had bacterial conjunctivitis most commonly caused by Staphylococcus, Streptococcus, and Haemophilus species. A comparison of the direct test with chlamydial cultures demonstrated a sensitivity of 100% and a specificity of 94%, whereas Giemsa stain had a sensitivity of 42% and a specificity of 98%. Nineteen percent of infants treated with oral erythromycin for chlamydial infections in accordance with Centers for Disease Control guidelines had clinical and laboratory evidence of persistent chlamydial conjunctivitis. We conclude that Chlamydia trachomatis is a major cause of neonatal conjunctivitis that can be effectively and rapidly diagnosed by direct immunofluorescent monoclonal antibody staining of conjunctival smears. Further evaluation of treatment regimens appears to be warranted.

(JAMA 1986;255:3369-3373)



Author Affiliations

From the Dana Center for Preventive Ophthalmology (Drs Rapoza and Taylor) and the Eye Pathology Laboratory (Drs Kiessling and Green), Wilmer Ophthalmological Institute, and the Department of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University (Dr Quinn), Baltimore; and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Md (Dr Quinn).


Footnotes

Reprint requests to Wilmer Ophthalmological Institute, 600 N Wolfe St, Baltimore, MD 21205 (Dr Taylor).



Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter     What's this?

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

Use of Methodological Standards in Diagnostic Test Research: Getting Better but Still Not Good
Reid et al.
JAMA 1995;274:645-651.
ABSTRACT  

Diagnosis of Chlamydia trachomatis Genitourinary Infections
STAMM
ANN INTERN MED 1988;108:710-717.
ABSTRACT  

Ophthalmia Neonatorum: Diagnosis and Treatment--Why Not Prevention?
Alexander
JAMA 1986;255:3404-3404.
ABSTRACT  





HOME | CURRENT ISSUE | PAST ISSUES | TOPIC COLLECTIONS | CME | SUBMIT | SUBSCRIBE | HELP
CONDITIONS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
 
© 1986 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.