IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pntd00/0005758.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The tradition algorithm approach underestimates the prevalence of serodiagnosis of syphilis in HIV-infected individuals

Author

Listed:
  • Bin Chen
  • Xiuming Peng
  • Tiansheng Xie
  • Changzhong Jin
  • Fumin Liu
  • Nanping Wu

Abstract

Currently, there are three algorithms for screening of syphilis: traditional algorithm, reverse algorithm and European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) algorithm. To date, there is not a generally recognized diagnostic algorithm. When syphilis meets HIV, the situation is even more complex. To evaluate their screening performance and impact on the seroprevalence of syphilis in HIV-infected individuals, we conducted a cross-sectional study included 865 serum samples from HIV-infected patients in a tertiary hospital. Every sample (one per patient) was tested with toluidine red unheated serum test (TRUST), T. pallidum particle agglutination assay (TPPA), and Treponema pallidum enzyme immunoassay (TP-EIA) according to the manufacturer’s instructions. The results of syphilis serological testing were interpreted following different algorithms respectively. We directly compared the traditional syphilis screening algorithm with the reverse syphilis screening algorithm in this unique population. The reverse algorithm achieved remarkable higher seroprevalence of syphilis than the traditional algorithm (24.9% vs. 14.2%, p

Suggested Citation

  • Bin Chen & Xiuming Peng & Tiansheng Xie & Changzhong Jin & Fumin Liu & Nanping Wu, 2017. "The tradition algorithm approach underestimates the prevalence of serodiagnosis of syphilis in HIV-infected individuals," PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(7), pages 1-10, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pntd00:0005758
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0005758
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosntds/article?id=10.1371/journal.pntd.0005758
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosntds/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pntd.0005758&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pntd.0005758?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pntd00:0005758. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosntds (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosntds/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.