Role of Point of Care (POC) and VDRL/RPR Tests in the Screening of Syphilis

Natesan, Thilakavathi

doi:10.1016/j.apme.2016.11.005

Cited by 1 publication

(2 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Thilakavathi in India found that POC is more effective in detecting syphilis when compared to VDRL. 15 However, he used TPHA as a standard to compare both tests.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…10 Of note is that POC testing follows ASSURED (Affordable, Sensitive, Specific, User-friendly, Rapid and Robust, Equipment-free and Delivered to end users) criteria as outlined by WHO's Special Program for Research and Training in Tropical Diseases. 9,10,[13][14][15] This is necessary in resource limited countries, where point-of-care (POC) tests can be utilized to reduce the effects of limited number laboratories and their personnel. The rapidity of POC test results, the possibility of treating the patient immediately, the ease of performance requiring no elaborate technical training in non-laboratory settings have made it acceptable in some facilities.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Comparative assessment of veneral disease research laboratory (VDRL) and point of care (POC) tests for diagnosing syphilis among pregnant women at a tertiary health facility in Lagos: A retrospective cohort study

Harrison,

Ugwu,

Okunade

et al. 2023

HJOG

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Syphilis is a systemic infection caused by the Spirochete Treponema Pallidum. The infection is of particular concern during pregnancy because of the high risk of vertical transmission causing adverse outcome including death. Traditional screening method is with Venereal Disease Research Laboratory (VDRL), which has a high false positive result and an increased waiting time. Aim: To compare the syphilis detection rate between Point-of-Care testing and Venereal Disease Research Laboratory testing among pregnant women. Methods: The retrospective cohort study was conducted at 68 Nigerian Army Reference Hospital Yaba (68NARHY), Lagos between July 2021 and June 2023. Data from antenatal clinic records were retrieved. All eligible pregnant women had both POC and VDRL testing. The primary outcome measures were false positive, false negative, true positive, true negative of the two tests. The sensitivity, and specificity and the diagnostic accuracy of both tests were calculated following which the ROC curve was drawn. Women with incomplete record or who did not conduct both testing were excluded from the study. All data set were collected using a well-designed purpose driven proforma. The data set were stored and later analyzed using the IBM SPSS for Windows, version 26.0 Armonk, NY: IBM corp. Analysis was both descriptive and inferential. The p-value of < 0.05 was set as statistically significant levels. Result: The mean age of the participants was 31.30±5.3. About 45.5% were of low parity while military personnel consisted of more than half of the study population. The prevalence of syphilis was 1.8% and 4.3% using VDRL and POC test kits respectively. When compared, there was a significant difference (P<0.001). It was also noted that a greater proportion of military personnel were reactive to the screening using either of those kits as against civilians. Conclusion: In our study, POC has demonstrated its ability to detect more cases of syphilis than VDRL as a screening test. Therefore, POC may serve as a cost-effective replacement screening test for VDRL, to rapidly and accurately detect syphilis infection. This step is crucial for early diagnosis, prompt treatment, and the prevention of further transmission of syphilis.

show abstract

“…Thilakavathi in India found that POC is more effective in detecting syphilis when compared to VDRL. 15 However, he used TPHA as a standard to compare both tests.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%