This Article
Right arrow Full Text
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 Bax, C. J.
Right arrow Articles by Oostvogel, P. M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Bax, C. J.
Right arrow Articles by Oostvogel, P. M.

 Previous Article  |  Next Article 

Clinical and Diagnostic Laboratory Immunology, January 2003, p. 174-176, Vol. 10, No. 1
1071-412X/03/$08.00+0     DOI: 10.1128/CDLI.10.1.174-176.2003
Copyright © 2003, American Society for Microbiology. All Rights Reserved.

Comparison of Serological Assays for Detection of Chlamydia trachomatis Antibodies in Different Groups of Obstetrical and Gynecological Patients

C. J. Bax,1,2* J. A. E. M. Mutsaers,3 C. L. Jansen,3 J. B. Trimbos,2 P. J. Dörr,1 and P. M. Oostvogel3

Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology,1 Department of Medical Microbiology, MCH Westeinde Hospital, The Hague,3 Department of Gynecology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands2

Received 21 February 2002/ Returned for modification 30 May 2002/ Accepted 31 October 2002

New serological enzyme immunoassays (EIAs) were compared with microimmunofluorescence (MIF) as a "gold standard" to detect Chlamydia trachomatis antibodies in different groups of obstetrical, gynecological, and subfertile patients. There were no significant differences in seroprevalence rates, except for the group of C. trachomatis-positive patients (P < 0.01). Test characteristics were calculated for Chlamydia-EIA (Biologische Analysensystem GmbH, Lich, Germany) and pELISA (Medac, Wedel, Germany). pELISA seems to be a good alternative to MIF. It has high specificity and is easier to perform.

* Corresponding author. Mailing address: Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Medical Center Haaglanden, Westeinde Hospital, P.O. Box 432, 2501 CK The Hague, The Netherlands. Phone: 31 70 3302066. Fax: 31 70 3889964. E-mail: c.bax{at}mchaaglanden.nl.

Clinical and Diagnostic Laboratory Immunology, January 2003, p. 174-176, Vol. 10, No. 1
1071-412X/03/$08.00+0     DOI: 10.1128/CDLI.10.1.174-176.2003
Copyright © 2003, American Society for Microbiology. All Rights Reserved.



This article has been cited by other articles:

  • Bax, C J, Dorr, P J, Trimbos, J B, Spaargaren, J, Oostvogel, P M, Pena, A S, Morre, S A (2004). Chlamydia trachomatis heat shock protein 60 (cHSP60) antibodies in women without and with tubal pathology using a new commercially available assay. Sex. Transm. Infect. 80: 415-416 [Full Text]  


Copyright © 2009 by the American Society for Microbiology.   For an alternate route to Journals.ASM.org, visit: http://intl-journals.asm.org | More Info»