Abstract
Chlamydia trachomatis diagnosis in our laboratory consisted of dual inoculation of shell vials and detection of inclusions by using fluorescein-conjugated monoclonal antiserum; the second culture vial was conventionally used for blind passage when the first vial was negative. We compared the increase in positivity using blind passage with that of a strategy utilizing observation of two stained monolayers (dual observation) without blind passage, in an effort to reduce the reporting time and labor associated with the conventional approach. A total of 4,329 specimens were obtained from an obstetrics and gynecology (OB-GYN) clinic (2,563 specimens) and the sexually transmitted disease clinic (1,766 specimens). These specimens were used to compare the two strategies. Blind passage of 1,269 initially culture-negative specimens from the OB-GYN clinic resulted in an additional 6 positive chlamydial diagnoses. In comparison, a similar number of specimens (1,294) from the OB-GYN clinic collected subsequently to the first group were tested by dual observation. There were five additional positive findings. A similar evaluation of specimens from the sexually transmitted disease clinic was performed. Blind passage of 313 initially culture-negative specimens yielded 3 additional positive diagnoses, whereas dual observation of 1,435 similar specimens resulted in 9 positive diagnoses. On the basis of analysis of 4,332 specimens, sensitivity of dual observation is comparable to that of blind passage; labor, cost, and reporting time of dual observation are reduced in comparison to those of blind passage.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have