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?

Daron G. Ferris, MD; L. Jeannine Petry, MD
Medical College of Georgia

Paul M. Fischer, MD
University Family Physicians Augusta, Georgia

JAMA. 1995;273(12):917-918.

	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.

—Control of Chlamydia trachomatis has been problematic. As demonstrated impressively by Dr Hook and colleagues,¹ meaningful efforts must be comprehensive in scope and must consider the complete spectrum of interventions from prevention and diagnosis to treatment. We share similar interests in rapid C trachomatis testing.^2-4 Because these rapid tests are commonly used in small clinics without formally trained laboratory staff, we have examined the effects of operator variability and training on test performance.^4,5

Our initial evaluation of rapid C trachomatis tests in 1989 clearly demonstrated performance differences between manufacturers.² When compared with culture, the sensitivity of the Abbott TestPack Chlamydia (Abbott Park, Ill) was 51.7% and the Kodak Surecell Chlamydia test (Rochester, NY) was 76.7%. Our concern about this obvious discordance between the performance of these two rapid test products prompted a second investigation of three rapid tests⁴ during February to May . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

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