This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowReprints and Permissions
Right arrow Copyright Information
Right arrow Books from ASM Press
Right arrow MicrobeWorld
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Chow, J. M.
Right arrow Articles by Schachter, J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Chow, J. M.
Right arrow Articles by Schachter, J.

 Previous Article  |  Next Article 

Journal of Clinical Microbiology, 03 1996, 534-536, Vol 34, No. 3
Copyright © 1996 by the American Society for Microbiology. All rights reserved.

Is urine leukocyte esterase test a useful screening method to predict Chlamydia trachomatis infection in women?

JM Chow, J Moncada, D Brooks, G Bolan, H Shaw and J Schachter
University of California, San Francisco, USA.

We evaluated the use of the leukocyte esterase test (LET) on first- catch urine specimens from women as a screening test to predict infection with Chlamydia trachomatis. For diagnosis, we used Abbott's ligase chain reaction (LCR) on urine specimens and isolation by tissue culture (TC) on cervical brushes. Of 4,053 women attending sexually transmitted disease and family planning clinics, 4.3% (n = 174) were positive by TC and 5.9% (n = 239) were positive by LCR. When LET was compared to TC, the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value were 54.0, 67.0, 6.8, and 97.0%, respectively. The corresponding performance of LET versus LCR was 53.1, 67.3, 10.1, and 95.8%. Almost half of the laboratory-confirmed chlamydial infections were negative by LET. The low specificity probably reflects multiple causes of pyuria in women and results in a low positive predictive value. LET is neither sensitive nor specific as a predictor of chlamydial infection and cannot be recommended for use as a screening test for C. trachomatis with first-catch urine samples from females from low- or moderate-prevalence populations.


This article has been cited by other articles:

  • Cohen, D. A., Nsuami, M., Etame, R. B., Tropez-Sims, S., Abdalian, S., Farley, T. A., Martin, D. H. (1998). A School-based Chlamydia Control Program Using DNA Amplification Technology. Pediatrics 101 : e1-e1 [Abstract] [Full Text]