2015
DOI: 10.1097/pat.0000000000000239
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Opportunities and pitfalls of molecular testing for detecting sexually transmitted pathogens

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1

Citation Types

0
18
0
1

Year Published

2015
2015
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6
3

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 22 publications
(19 citation statements)
references
References 96 publications
0
18
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…However, NAATs have shortcomings, recently reviewed by Trembizki et al . [8], to be kept in mind when interpreting test results. One of the main disadvantages of NAAT assays is that the available target DNA is amplified without discriminating between DNA originating from viable or non-viable CT.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, NAATs have shortcomings, recently reviewed by Trembizki et al . [8], to be kept in mind when interpreting test results. One of the main disadvantages of NAAT assays is that the available target DNA is amplified without discriminating between DNA originating from viable or non-viable CT.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The increased sensitivity of NAATs makes them particularly suitable for screening, enabling accurate diagnosis of both symptomatic and asymptomatic gonococcal infections, which is critical to the control of the disease [24]. Second, specimens collected for NAATs do not require the organism to be viable for detection and so require less stringent transport conditions compared with those collected for bacterial culture.…”
Section: Molecular Detection Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…4,5 Conventional diagnostic algorithms for STIs include cell culture, microscopic examination, enzyme immunoassay, and other serological investigation techniques. [6][7][8] The diagnosis of STIs by culture or serology remains a challenge. 9 Especially for herpes simplex virus and Treponema pallidum detection, cell culture shows low-sensitivity and long turnaround time, making this assay clinically useless.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%