title: A comparison of diagnostic methods in adolescent girls with and without symptoms of Chlamydia urogenital infection.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  To evaluate the clinical utility of various diagnostic tests, two enzyme immunoassays and a chemiluminescent DNA probe were compared with cell culture (with monoclonal antibody confirmation) for the diagnosis of endocervical Chlamydia trachomatis infection.
  
  
  METHODS
  The clinical performance of four diagnostic methods for Chlamydia trachomatis urogenital infections were compared, using specimens generated from consecutive pelvic examinations.
  
  
  METHODS
  Subjects were recruited from an urban adolescent clinic that provides primary and referral care.
  
  
  METHODS
  A total of 479 adolescent female subjects were enrolled. The order of sample collection was randomized. Subjects were stratified according to whether they were asymptomatic (n = 228) or symptomatic (n = 251).
  
  
  RESULTS
  Discrepant analysis was performed when culture was negative and nonculture technique was positive. The subject was considered to have chlamydia if culture was positive, or if one or more nonculture techniques, with that test's confirmatory assay, were positive (consensus-positive). Prevalence of chlamydia was 11.0% in the asymptomatic, and 20.7% in the symptomatic, group. Overall, 32.5% of the infected subjects were asymptomatic. Sensitivity of diagnostic methods varied from 52% to 80% in the asymptomatic subjects, compared with 65% to 81% in symptomatic subjects. Culture sensitivity was 75% to 80%. The specificities of all tests were 96% or greater. Accuracy of nonculture methods varied from 89.5% (DNA probe, symptomatic subjects) to 96.9% (enzyme immunoassay asymptomatic subjects).
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  There are significant differences in symptomatic subjects when evaluating accuracy of test outcome, using a consensus-positive criterion. Asymptomatic infections account for nearly one third of adolescent females infected with chlamydia. The prevalence of chlamydia urogenital infections are underestimated by any single diagnostic test, particularly in the asymptomatic patient.
authors.affiliation: Division of Adolescent Medicine, Children's Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, OH.
authors.forename: F M
authors.initials: FM
authors.lastname: Biro
authors.forename: S F
authors.initials: SF
authors.lastname: Reising
authors.forename: J A
authors.initials: JA
authors.lastname: Doughman
authors.forename: L M
authors.initials: LM
authors.lastname: Kollar
authors.forename: S L
authors.initials: SL
authors.lastname: Rosenthal
mesh_terms: D000293:Adolescent; D000328:Adult; D000911:Antibodies, Monoclonal; D002478:Cells, Cultured; D002584:Cervix Uteri / Q000382:microbiology; D002648:Child; D002690:Chlamydia Infections / Q000175:diagnosis* / Q000382:microbiology; D002692:Chlamydia trachomatis / Q000302:isolation & purification*; D019411:Clinical Laboratory Techniques / Q000379:methods; D015342:DNA Probes; D005260:Female; D052776:Female Urogenital Diseases / Q000175:diagnosis* / Q000382:microbiology; D006801:Humans; D007124:Immunoenzyme Techniques; D008163:Luminescent Measurements; D011237:Predictive Value of Tests; D012680:Sensitivity and Specificity
chemical_list: D000911:Antibodies, Monoclonal; D015342:DNA Probes