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?

Edward W. Hook III, MD
University of Alabama at Birmingham

Thomas C. Quinn, MD
The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine Baltimore, Md

Christopher Spitters, MD, MPH
Snohomish Health District Everett, Wash

JAMA. 1995;273(12):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.

In Reply.

—We are pleased that Dr Ferris and colleagues agree that C trachomatis antigen detection tests, which provide results rapidly while patients are still present in clinics, provide an appealing approach to augment efforts to control Chlamydia infections. As suggested by our study, even with less than optimal sensitivity, such a strategy would be useful for dealing with patients who may not return for treatment.

Despite our agreement in concept, however, we remain unconvinced that the performance of any currently (or previously) available rapid chlamydial antigen detection test is sufficiently sensitive to recommend widespread use. Like Ferris and colleagues, we have conducted head-to-head comparisons of the TestPack and Surecell rapid chlamydial antigen detection tests. In a subsequent multicenter study in which one of us (E.W.H.) participated,¹ the Surecell test performed only marginally (but not significantly) better than the TestPack. The combined sensitivities of the TestPack and Surecell tests . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

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