Chlamydia Rapid Test as accurate as conventional testing

Clinical Question: Can a point-of-care test for Chlamydia trachomatis using vaginal swabs be used as an accurate screening test?

Bottom Line:

The Chlamydia Rapid Test, a point-of-care test that can be read in approximately 30 minutes, has a sensitivity of 83% and a specificity of 99%. Used in higher-risk areas as a screening test, it will rule out Chlamydia infection in 98% of women who don’t have it. It uses vaginal swab samples as an alternative to urine samples, which may be easier to collect. It is certified by the European Union (CE), but not yet available in the United States or Canada. (LOE = 1c)


Mahilum-Tapay L, Laitila V, Wawrzyniak JJ, et al. New point of care Chlamydia Rapid Test — bridging the gap between diagnosis and treatment: performance evaluation study. BMJ 2007;335(7631):1190-1194.

Study Design:

Diagnostic test evaluation




Outpatient (specialty)


The researchers enrolled 1349 young women attending either a sexual health center or 1 of 2 genitourinary medicine clinics in the United Kingdom to evaluate the Chlamydia Rapid Test. The prevalence of disease ranged from 6% to 9.4% at the 3 sites. The gold standard was first-void urine sample testing by polymerase chain reaction assay and was conducted on all women. For the rapid test, women were given vaginal swabs for self-collection of a sample for analysis. The rapid test result can’t be seen until 25 minutes following preparation of the sample, but can then be read as a simple line on a test strip. The sensitivity of the rapid test was 82.7% and the specificity was 98.8%. The predictive values ranged from 80.6% to 93.8% (positive) and 98% to 99% (negative), depending on the prevalence at each site. A survey found that most (95.9%) women felt comfortable collecting their own vaginal swab specimens and 75% were willing to wait between 30 minutes and 2 hours for their test results.

British Medical Journal: 08/12/2007 – Vol.335 Num.7631

[RESEARCH] New point of care Chlamydia Rapid Test bridging the gap between diagnosis and treatment: performance evaluation study

Objective To evaluate the performance of a new Chlamydia Rapid Test with vaginal swab specimens as a potential tool for chlamydia diagnosis and screening.

Design Performance evaluation study.

Settings A young people’s sexual health centre (site 1) and two genitourinary medicine clinics (sites 2 and 3) in the United Kingdom.

Participants 1349 women aged between 16 and 54 attending one of the three clinics.

Main outcome measures Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of the Chlamydia Rapid Test versus polymerase chain reaction and strand displacement amplification assays; correlation between the Chlamydia Rapid Test visual signal and organism load; acceptability to participants of self collected vaginal swabs as the specimen type for Chlamydia testing.

Results Polymerase chain reaction positivity rates for Chlamydia trachomatis infection were 8.4% (56/663) at site 1, 9.4% (36/385) at site 2, and 6.0% (18/301) at site 3. Compared with polymerase chain reaction assay, the resolved sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of the Chlamydia Rapid Test were 83.5% (91/109), 98.9% (1224/1238), 86.7% (91/105), and 98.6% (1224/1242). Compared with strand displacement amplification assay, sensitivity and specificity of the Chlamydia Rapid Test were 81.6% (40/49) and 98.3% (578/588). Organism load of self collected vaginal swabs ranged from 5.97×102 to 1.09×109 Chlamydia plasmids per swab, which correlated well with the Chlamydia Rapid Test’s visual signal (r=0.6435, P<0.0001). Most (95.9%) surveyed participants felt comfortable about collecting their own swabs.

Conclusions The performance of the Chlamydia Rapid Test with self collected vaginal swabs indicates that it would be an effective same day diagnostic and screening tool for Chlamydia infection in women. The availability of Chlamydia Rapid Test results within 30 minutes allows for immediate treatment and contact tracing, potentially reducing the risks of persistent infection and onward transmission. It could also provide a simple and reliable alternative to nucleic acid amplification tests in chlamydia screening programmes.
[RESEARCH] Long term pharmacotherapy for obesity and overweight: updated meta-analysis

Objective To summarise the long term efficacy of anti-obesity drugs in reducing weight and improving health status.

Design Updated meta-analysis of randomised trials.

Data sources Medline, Embase, the Cochrane controlled trials register, the Current Science meta-register of controlled trials, and reference lists of identified articles. All data sources were searched from December 2002 (end date of last search) to December 2006.

Studies reviewed Double blind randomised placebo controlled trials of approved anti-obesity dugs used in adults (age over 18) for one year or longer.

Results 30 trials of one to four years’ duration met the inclusion criteria: 16 orlistat (n=10 631 participants), 10 sibutramine (n=2623), and four rimonabant (n=6365). Of these, 14 trials were new and 16 had previously been identified. Attrition rates averaged 30-40%. Compared with placebo, orlistat reduced weight by 2.9 kg (95% confidence interval 2.5 kg to 3.2 kg), sibutramine by 4.2 kg (3.6 kg to 4.7 kg), and rimonabant by 4.7 kg (4.1 kg to 5.3 kg). Patients receiving active drug treatment were significantly more likely to achieve 5% and 10% weight loss thresholds. Orlistat reduced the incidence of diabetes and improved concentrations of total cholesterol and low density lipoprotein cholesterol, blood pressure, and glycaemic control in patients with diabetes but increased rates of gastrointestinal side effects and slightly lowered concentrations of high density lipoprotein. Sibutramine lowered concentrations of high density lipoprotein cholesterol and triglycerides but raised blood pressure and pulse rate. Rimonabant improved concentrations of high density lipoprotein cholesterol and triglycerides, blood pressure, and glycaemic control in patients with diabetes but increased the risk of mood disorders.

Conclusions Orlistat, sibutramine, and rimonabant modestly reduce weight, have differing effects on cardiovascular risk profiles, and have specific adverse effects.
[RESEARCH] Mortality in men admitted to hospital with acute urinary retention: database analysis

Objectives To investigate mortality in men admitted to hospital with acute urinary retention and to report on the effects of comorbidity on mortality.

Design Analysis of the hospital episode statistics database linked to the mortality database of the Office for National Statistics.

Setting NHS hospital trusts in England, 1998-2005.

Participants All men aged over 45 who were admitted to NHS hospitals in England with a first episode of acute urinary retention.

Main outcome measures Mortality in the first year after acute urinary retention and standardised mortality ratio against the general population.

Results During the study period, 176 046 men aged over 45 were admitted to hospital with a first episode of acute urinary retention. In 100 067 men with spontaneous acute urinary retention, the one year mortality was 4.1% in men aged 45-54 and 32.8% in those aged 85 and over. In 75 979 men with precipitated acute urinary retention, mortality was 9.5% and 45.4%, respectively. In men with spontaneous acute urinary retention aged 75-84, the most prevalent age group, the one year mortality was 12.5% in men without comorbidity and 28.8% in men with comorbidity. The corresponding figures for men with precipitated acute urinary retention were 18.1% and 40.5%. Compared with the general population, the highest relative increase in mortality was in men aged 45-54 (standardised mortality ratio 10.0 for spontaneous and 23.6 for precipitated acute urinary retention) and the lowest for men 85 and over (1.7 and 2.4, respectively).

Conclusions Mortality in men admitted to hospital with acute urinary retention is high and increases strongly with age and comorbidity. Patients might benefit from multi-disciplinary care to identify and treat comorbid conditions. Continue reading British Medical Journal: 08/12/2007 – Vol.335 Num.7631

Laboratory Tests and Diagnostic Procedures

Laboratory Tests and Diagnostic Procedures


Product Details
»Book Publisher: Saunders (14 June, 2007)
»ISBN: 1416037047
»Book author: Cynthia C. Chernecky, Barbara J. Berger
» Amazon Rating: 4.5

Book Description:
Look no further for quick, complete answers to questions such as which laboratory tests to order or what the results might mean. Laboratory Tests And Diagnostic Procedures, 5th Edition covers more tests than any other reference of its kind, with over 900 lab tests and diagnostic procedures in all. In Part I, you’ll find a unique, alphabetical list of hundreds of diseases, conditions, and symptoms, including the tests and procedures most commonly used to confirm or rule out a suspected diagnosis. Part II presents key information on virtually every laboratory and diagnostic test available. All test entries are up-to-date, concise, complete, and consistently presented, making this resource the perfect choice for students or practitioners who need fast, accurate information on diagnostic tests.


P.E.A.R.L.S: un simple susurro es efectivo en el diagnostico de dificultad auditiva

A simple whisper test is effective for diagnosing hearing impairment

Clinical Question

How useful are simple screening tests for diagnosing hearing impairment?

Bottom Line

The whispered voice tests and the audio scope are very accurate for ruling out hearing impairment (i.e if patient can hear whisper, they are unlikely to be deaf)


Compared to the Weber and Rinne tuning fork tests the whispered voice test is the most accurate and may be better than the expensive audioscope, with pooled positive and negative likelihood ratios of 6.1 and 0.03 respectively.


There is no single standard method for the whispered voice test but modified Paul Glasziou suggests the following: stand behind the patient at arm’s length (hands on their shoulders), then cover one ear (by rubbing a piece of paper over the external meatus). Exhale fully and whisper letters and numbers with different types of sound. (e.g. b, 6, k, 2, m, 9). Ask the patient to repeat the letters/numbers after each sound. Allow 1-2 errors and repeat each sound once if necessary.


Bagai A, et al. Does this patient have hearing impairment ? JAMA 2006;295:416-28

Date (Author) #20

January 2007 (Bruce Arroll/Brian McAvoy)