Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Screening for syphilis in pregnancy: which is the proper method?

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Consequences of syphilis in mother, pregnancy, fetus and child are considerable, but preventable. Serological screening must be offered at the first prenatal visit. Presently, the diagnosis of syphilis is dependent mainly on serological tests. The most widely used screening tests for syphilis are the VDRL and the rapid plasma reagin (RPR) and for confirmation the fluorescent treponemal antibody (FTA) and the treponema pallidum hemagglutination (TPHA) tests.

Method

The four alternative nodes for diagnosis of can be a) VDRL + FTA, b) VDRL + TPHA, c) RPR + FTA and d) RPR + TPHA. Here the author reports an evaluation of cost utility of those tests in obstetrical practice. According to this study, it can be shown that the cost per accurate diagnosis for VDRL + TPHA is the least expensive choice and for RPR + FTA is the most expensive choice.

Conclusion

Therefore, this alternative is the best method for serological diagnosis of syphilis, based on medical laboratory economics principles.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Goh BT (2005) Syphilis in adults. Sex Transm Infect 81:448–452

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Berman SM (2004) Maternal syphilis: pathophysiology and treatment. Bull World Health Organ 82:433–488

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Mandelbrot L, Marcollet A (2004) Syphilis and pregnancy. Rev Prat 54:392–395

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Lowhagen GB (1990) Syphilis: test procedures and therapeutic strategies. Semin Dermatol 9:152–159

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Wiwanitkit V (2002) Biological false reactive VDRL tests: when to re-test? Southeast Asian J Trop Med Public Health 33 Suppl 3:131–132

    Google Scholar 

  6. Siegel JE, Weinstein MC, Russell LB, Gold MR (1996) Recommendations for reporting cost-effectiveness analyses. Panel on cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. JAMA 276:1339–1341

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Zeltser R, Kurban AK (2004) Syphilis. Clin Dermatol 22:461–468

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Griemberg G, Ravelli MR, Etcheves PC, Orfus G, Pizzimenti MC (2000) Syphilis and pregnancy. Prenatal control, seroprevalence and false biological positives. Medicina (B Aires) 60:343–347

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Drusin LM (1984) Syphilis: clinical manifestations, diagnosis, and treatment. Urol Clin North Am 11:121–130

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Feder HM Jr, Manthous C (1988) The asymptomatic patient with a positive VDRL test. Am Fam Physician 37:185–190

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Laboratory Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, 10330, Thailand

    Viroj Wiwanitkit

Authors
  1. Viroj Wiwanitkit
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Viroj Wiwanitkit.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Wiwanitkit, V. Screening for syphilis in pregnancy: which is the proper method?. Arch Gynecol Obstet 276, 629–631 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-007-0400-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-007-0400-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation