The value of urine samples from men with non-gonococcal urethritis for the detection of Chlamydia trachomatis.
Phillip Hay, B J Thomas, Cassie L. Gilchrist, Helen M. Palmer, Claire B. Gilroy, DAVID TAYLOR‐ROBINSON
Abstract
Open-access reader
Phillip Hay, B J Thomas, Cassie L. Gilchrist, Helen M. Palmer, Claire B. Gilroy, DAVID TAYLOR‐ROBINSON
Abstract
Open-access reader
Chlamydia trachomatis was sought at first and subsequent clinic visits in urethral swabs and urines from 112 heterosexual men with acute non-gonococcal urethritis (NGU). In comparison with a urethral swab tested by Micro Trak (MT), a urine deposit tested in the same way was 90% as sensitive. Examining a urine deposit by the enzyme immunoassay IDEIA was a little less sensitive (89%) than examining a similar deposit by MT, and was less sensitive (82%) than examining a urethral swab by MT. The results of testing urines were little influenced by collecting them either before or after swabbing the urethra, and there was evidence that examining all of a urine sample by IDEIA would have increased sensitivity. Overall, 55 (49%) of the men were diagnosed as C trachomatis-positive based on the results of testing both a urethral swab and a urine sample. Furthermore, a small numbers of chlamydiae were detected by examining urine by MT and, to a lesser extent, by IDEIA, so that there is no reason why this non-invasive approach should not be successful in men other than those with acute NGU.
OpenAlex reports 33 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.
A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.
Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Chlamydia trachomatis was sought at first and subsequent clinic visits in urethral swabs and urines from 112 heterosexual men with acute non-gonococcal urethritis (NGU). In comparison with a urethral swab tested by Micro Trak (MT), a urine deposit tested in the same way was 90% as sensitive. Examining a urine deposit by the enzyme immunoassay IDEIA was a little less sensitive (89%) than examining a similar deposit by MT, and was less sensitive (82%) than examining a urethral swab by MT. The results of testing urines were little influenced by collecting them either before or after swabbing the urethra, and there was evidence that examining all of a urine sample by IDEIA would have increased sensitivity. Overall, 55 (49%) of the men were diagnosed as C trachomatis-positive based on the results of testing both a urethral swab and a urine sample. Furthermore, a small numbers of chlamydiae were detected by examining urine by MT and, to a lesser extent, by IDEIA, so that there is no reason why this non-invasive approach should not be successful in men other than those with acute NGU.
Key concepts: Chlamydia trachomatis, Chlamydiae, Urethritis, Urine, Medicine, Non-gonococcal urethritis, Urethra, Immunoassay