Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (CCLM)
Published in Association with the European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (EFLM)
Editor-in-Chief: Plebani, Mario
Ed. by Gillery, Philippe / Lackner, Karl J. / Lippi, Giuseppe / Melichar, Bohuslav / Payne, Deborah A. / Schlattmann, Peter / Tate, Jillian R.
12 Issues per year
IMPACT FACTOR increased in 2015: 3.017
Rank 5 out of 30 in category Medical Laboratory Technology in the 2014 Thomson Reuters Journal Citation Report/Science Edition
SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2015: 0.873
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2015: 0.982
Impact per Publication (IPP) 2015: 2.238
Evaluation of two automated chemiluminescence immunoassays, the LIAISON Treponema Screen and the ARCHITECT Syphilis TP, and the Treponema pallidum particle agglutination test for laboratory diagnosis of syphilis
- Dr. Gaertner and Colleagues Laboratory, Ravensburg, Germany
Background: Automated Treponema pallidum-specific chemi-luminescence immunoassays (CLIA) run on random-access analyzers allow for rapid diagnosis of syphilis infection.
Methods: We evaluated the LIAISON Treponema Screen (LIA) and the ARCHITECT Syphilis TP (ARCH) in comparison to the Treponema pallidum particle agglutination (TPPA) test, as a screening test for syphilis. We performed a prospective study using 577 sera submitted for diagnosis of syphilis, including 318 samples from pregnant women. In addition, 42 stored sera from 32 patients with clinically and serologically characterized syphilis infection were investigated.
Results: In the prospective study, the sensitivity and specificity of LIA, ARCH, and TPPA were 100% (18/18), 100% (17/17), and 100% (18/18), and 100% (558/558), 99.8% (552/553), and 99.6% (556/558), respectively. In pregnant women, the specificity of LIA and ARCH was 100% (317/317) and of TPPA 99.7% (316/317). One sample from a child with assumed exposure to maternal antitreponemal antibodies was omitted from analysis. LIA, ARCH, and TPPA were also positive in all investigated sera from patients with known syphilis.
Conclusions: Both automated CLIA demonstrated excellent diagnostic sensitivity and specificity when evaluated as a screening test for syphilis under routine conditions of a diagnostic laboratory. Thus, these may be used independently as an alternative to the manual TPPA screen.
Here you can find all Crossref-listed publications in which this article is cited. If you would like to receive automatic email messages as soon as this article is cited in other publications, simply activate the “Citation Alert” on the top of this page.