This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in JAMA  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Barbara D. Reed, MD, MSPH
University of Utah Salt Lake City

Werner Huck, M(ASCP)
Hucsto Inc Salt Lake City

JAMA. 1987;257(19):2593.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

To the Editor. —

Over a two-year period, unforeseen circumstances led us to use two different microbiology laboratories for Chlamydia trachomatis testing by the direct immunofluorescence method. The large disparity in the results obtained from the two laboratories illustrates the need for standards to ensure the quality of this test.

Study.—

Between January 14, 1985, and April 29, 1985, we tested patients with and without cervicitis for the presence of C trachomatis using the direct immunofluorescence test. Patients were seen in three family practice offices and a family planning center. The testing was performed at a private microbiology laboratory in Salt Lake City. The rate of detection of C trachomatis in the patients with and without symptoms of pelvic infection was 3% (6/194). After the study was concluded, the direct testing for C trachomatis infections in our family practice center reverted to a local laboratory we had used previously. Surprisingly, . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

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