This Article Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Reprints and Permissions Copyright Information Books from ASM Press MicrobeWorld Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Suchland, K. L. Articles by Stamm, W. E. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Suchland, K. L. Articles by Stamm, W. E.

 Previous Article  |  Next Article 

Journal of Clinical Microbiology, 12 1997, 3210-3214, Vol 35, No. 12
Copyright © 1997 by the American Society for Microbiology. All rights reserved.

Laboratory methods for detection of Chlamydia trachomatis: survey of laboratories in Washington State [In Process Citation]

KL Suchland, JM Counts and WE Stamm
Department of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle 98195, USA. katesuch@u.washington.edu

The last decade has witnessed the development of a wide variety of diagnostic tests for Chlamydia trachomatis. In order to determine what laboratory methods are being used to detect C. trachomatis infections in Washington State and to identify factors influencing test selection, between April 1995 and October 1995 we conducted a mailed questionnaire survey of all 112 laboratories certified to do chlamydia testing. Of these, 20 had discontinued testing for C. trachomatis, and responses were obtained from 89 (97%) of the remaining 92 laboratories. Surprisingly, 38 (43%) of the 89 laboratories used rapid tests such as Clearview and Surecell, making such tests the most commonly used laboratory tests. Laboratories which used rapid tests had lower test volumes, less experience performing tests for C. trachomatis, less frequent attendance at professional meetings, and greater reliance on manufacturers for information compared with laboratories which used other methods. Confirmation of non-culture-positive results was provided by 28 (34%) of the 82 laboratories doing non-culture-based tests. Forty-one (47%) of 88 laboratories reported having compared their method with another method. Test volume was the strongest predictor of laboratories which confirmed positive non-culture-based test results and which had performed a laboratory comparison of methods. We conclude that rapid tests for C. trachomatis are often being used inappropriately and that efforts are needed to improve effective implementation and quality assurance of laboratory testing for C. trachomatis.

This article has been cited by other articles:

• Battle, T. J., Golden, M. R., Suchland, K. L., Counts, J. M., Hughes, J. P., Stamm, W. E., Holmes, K. K. (2001). Evaluation of Laboratory Testing Methods for Chlamydia trachomatis Infection in the Era of Nucleic Acid Amplification. J. Clin. Microbiol. 39: 2924-2927 [Abstract] [Full Text]