Skip to main content
Log in

Evaluation of a commercial enzyme immunoassay versus culture for the detection ofChlamydia trachomatis

  • Article
  • Published:
European Journal of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

A commercial EIA (Chlamydiazyme) for detection ofChlamydia trachomatis was evaluated in comparison to culture using genital specimens from 472 men and 279 women. The sensitivity of the EIA compared with culture was 66.0% in men and 71.4% in women, while the specificity was 99.7% and 95.9% respectively. The EIA failed more often to detect chlamydial antigen when the number of inclusion bodies found in the corresponding cultures was ⩽ 100/well. A direct test (MicroTrak) was performed on the EIA samples which showed discordant results compared to corresponding cultures. One of 17 EIA positive samples, and 12 of 36 EIA negative samples were positive in the direct test (p<0.05). A cut-off absorbance value of 0.1 is recommended by the manufacturer in the EIA. However, 84.2% of the EIA negative samples in the negative absorbance interval 0.05–0.099 corresponded with a positive culture. In view of variations in the sensitivity of the culture technique between laboratories and the low sensitivity of the EIA found in this study, it is recommended that each laboratory using the EIA compare it to culture. It is also recommended that an equivocal zone around the cut-off value be used in the EIA, the zone to be established by each laboratory using the test.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Howard, L. V., Coleman, P. F., England, B. J., Herrmann, J. E.: Evaluation of Chlamydiazyme for the detection of genital infections caused byChlamydia trachomatis. Journal of Clinical Microbiology 1986, 23: 329–332.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Mumtaz, G., Mellars, B. J., Ridgway, G. L., Oriel, J. D.: Enzyme immunoassay for the detection ofChlamydia trachomatis antigen in urethral and endocervical swabs. Journal of Clinical Pathology 1985, 38: 740–742.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Pothier, P., Kasmierczak, A.: Comparison of cell culture with two direct chlamydia tests using immunofluorescence or enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. European Journal of Clinical Microbiology 1986, 5: 569–572.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Chernesky, M. A., Mahony, J. B., Castriciano, S., Mores, M., Stewart, I. O., Landis, S. J., Seidelman, W., Sargeant, E. J., Leman, C.: Detection ofChlamydia trachomatis antigens by enzyme immunoassay and immunofluorescence in genital specimens from symptomatic and asymptomatic men and women. Journal of Infectious Diseases 1986, 154: 141–148.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Taylor-Robinson, D., Thomas, B. J., Osborn, M. F.: Evaluation of enzyme immunoassay (Chlamydiazyme) for detectingChlamydia trachomatis in genital tract specimens. Journal of Clinical Pathology 1987, 40: 194–199.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Hipp, S. S., Han, Y., Murphy, D.: Assessment of enzyme immunoassay and immunofluorescence tests for detection ofChlamydia trachomatis. Journal of Clinical Microbiology 1987, 25: 1938–1943.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Mohanty, K. C., O'Neill, J. J., Hambling, M. H.: Comparison of enzyme immunoassays and cell culture for detectingChlamydia trachomatis. Genitourinary Medicin 1986, 62: 175–176.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Schachter, J.: Biology ofChlamydia trachomatis. In: Holmes, K. K., Mårdh, P.-A., Sparling, P. F., Wiesner, P. J. (ed.): Sexually transmitted diseases. McGraw-Hill, New York, 1984, p. 243–257.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Mårdh, P.-A.: Bacteria, chlamydiae and mycoplasmas. In: Holmes, K. K., Mårdh, P.-A., Sparling, P. F., Wiesner, P. J. (ed.): Sexually transmitted diseases. McGraw-Hill, New York, 1984, p. 829–856.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Levy, R. A., Warford, A. L.: Evaluation of the modified Chlamydiazyme immunoassay for the detection of chlamydial antigen. American Journal of Clinical Pathology 1986, 86: 330–335.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Moi, H., Danielsson, D.: Diagnosis of genitalChlamydia trachomatis infection in males by cell culture and antigen detection test. European Journal of Clinical Microbiology 1986, 5: 563–568.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Saikku, P., Poulakkainen, M., Leinonen, M., Nurminen, M., Nissinen, A.: Cross-reactivity between Chlamydiazyme andAcinetobacter strains. New England Journal of Medicine 1986, 314: 922–923.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Hammerschlag, M. R., Rettig, P. J., Shields, M. E.: False positive results with the use of chlamydial antigen detection tests in the evaluation of suspected sexual abuse in children. Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal 1988, 7: 11–14.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bäckman, M., Rudén, A.K.M., Ringertz, O. et al. Evaluation of a commercial enzyme immunoassay versus culture for the detection ofChlamydia trachomatis . Eur. J. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. 8, 778–782 (1989). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02185844

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02185844

Keywords

Navigation