Enzyme‐linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) versus Venereal Disease Research Laboratory test (VDRL) and rapid plasma reagin test (RPR) for screening of syphilis in pregnant women

Objective To evaluate a treponemal enzyme‐linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) as an alternative screening test for syphilis in pregnant women. Methods A cross‐sectional study of diagnostic test accuracy was carried out in a large volume laboratory from a tertiary care center. A total of 416 serum sam...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:International journal of gynecology and obstetrics 2020-07, Vol.150 (1), p.103-107
Hauptverfasser: Solaimalai, Dhanalakshmi, Rathore, Swati, Beck, Manisha M., Regi, Annie, Yesudhason, Binesh L., Veeraraghavan, Balaji, Prakash, John A.J.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 107
container_issue 1
container_start_page 103
container_title International journal of gynecology and obstetrics
container_volume 150
creator Solaimalai, Dhanalakshmi
Rathore, Swati
Beck, Manisha M.
Regi, Annie
Yesudhason, Binesh L.
Veeraraghavan, Balaji
Prakash, John A.J.
description Objective To evaluate a treponemal enzyme‐linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) as an alternative screening test for syphilis in pregnant women. Methods A cross‐sectional study of diagnostic test accuracy was carried out in a large volume laboratory from a tertiary care center. A total of 416 serum samples, including 102 archived syphilis Treponema pallidum hemagglutination (TPHA)‐positive samples and 314 samples from pregnant women, were used to determine the sensitivity and specificity of ELISA. All the samples were subjected to Venereal Disease Research Laboratory (VDRL), rapid plasma reagin (RPR), ELISA, and TPHA tests. Performance characteristics of VDRL, RPR, and ELISA were calculated with TPHA as a reference standard test. Results VDRL and RPR exhibited higher false positivity of 10.5% and 9.6%, respectively, compared to 2.5% by ELISA. The sensitivity and specificity of ELISA were 98% and 97.5%, of VDRL were 71.6% and 89.5%, and of RPR were 73.5% and 90.5%, respectively. Moreover, ELISA had an excellent agreement (kappa=0.9) with TPHA compared to VDRL/RPR which had a moderate agreement (kappa=0.6) only. Conclusion ELISA has the potential to replace VDRL/RPR as a screening test for syphilis in centers that can perform ELISA, especially for antenatal screening. The cross‐sectional study of diagnostic test accuracy found that treponemal ELISA can replace VDRL or RPR for screening of syphilis in pregnant women.
doi_str_mv 10.1002/ijgo.13154
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2386283675</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2386283675</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3294-dc39059d92fe06d4fbad16e7cc8ad569ee91a624273cedf4de72e37687a2ad283</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp90cFu00AQBuAVAtFQuPAAaI4JktvdteO1j1UbSpClVgF6tTbecbrF3nV3Eipz4hF4Fh6JJ2FLAkdOc5hvfo30M_Za8BPBuTy1dxt_IlIxz56wiShUmaSZKp-ySVzyRMlSHrEXRHecc6GEeM6OUimzXCk5YT8X7tvY46_vPzrrvqAB2_c758mHNbotaCI9wnRRLT-ezeArBtoR3KDDgLqDC0uoCWGFcYbmFiq99kFvfRhhi7SF6c3FqpqBdgaCHqyBodPUa4jXG-sOZnW9mkHrA1ATEJ11G_At0Djc2s4SRDcE3Dgd33nwPbqX7FmrO8JXh3nMPr9bfDp_n1RXl8vzsyppUllmiWnSks9LU8oWeW6ydq2NyFE1TaHNPC8RS6FzmUmVNmjazKCSmKq8UFpqI4v0mE33uUPw97v4at1barDrtEO_o1qmRR5ZruaRvt3TJniigG09BNvrMNaC148d1Y8d1X86ivjNIXe37tH8o39LiUDswYPtcPxPVL38cHm1D_0Ngg-f3g</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2386283675</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Enzyme‐linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) versus Venereal Disease Research Laboratory test (VDRL) and rapid plasma reagin test (RPR) for screening of syphilis in pregnant women</title><source>Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete</source><creator>Solaimalai, Dhanalakshmi ; Rathore, Swati ; Beck, Manisha M. ; Regi, Annie ; Yesudhason, Binesh L. ; Veeraraghavan, Balaji ; Prakash, John A.J.</creator><creatorcontrib>Solaimalai, Dhanalakshmi ; Rathore, Swati ; Beck, Manisha M. ; Regi, Annie ; Yesudhason, Binesh L. ; Veeraraghavan, Balaji ; Prakash, John A.J.</creatorcontrib><description>Objective To evaluate a treponemal enzyme‐linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) as an alternative screening test for syphilis in pregnant women. Methods A cross‐sectional study of diagnostic test accuracy was carried out in a large volume laboratory from a tertiary care center. A total of 416 serum samples, including 102 archived syphilis Treponema pallidum hemagglutination (TPHA)‐positive samples and 314 samples from pregnant women, were used to determine the sensitivity and specificity of ELISA. All the samples were subjected to Venereal Disease Research Laboratory (VDRL), rapid plasma reagin (RPR), ELISA, and TPHA tests. Performance characteristics of VDRL, RPR, and ELISA were calculated with TPHA as a reference standard test. Results VDRL and RPR exhibited higher false positivity of 10.5% and 9.6%, respectively, compared to 2.5% by ELISA. The sensitivity and specificity of ELISA were 98% and 97.5%, of VDRL were 71.6% and 89.5%, and of RPR were 73.5% and 90.5%, respectively. Moreover, ELISA had an excellent agreement (kappa=0.9) with TPHA compared to VDRL/RPR which had a moderate agreement (kappa=0.6) only. Conclusion ELISA has the potential to replace VDRL/RPR as a screening test for syphilis in centers that can perform ELISA, especially for antenatal screening. The cross‐sectional study of diagnostic test accuracy found that treponemal ELISA can replace VDRL or RPR for screening of syphilis in pregnant women.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0020-7292</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1879-3479</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1002/ijgo.13154</identifier><identifier>PMID: 32246772</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States</publisher><subject>Enzyme‐linked immunosorbent assay ; Rapid plasma reagin ; Screening ; Sexually transmitted infections ; Syphilis ; Venereal Disease Research Laboratory</subject><ispartof>International journal of gynecology and obstetrics, 2020-07, Vol.150 (1), p.103-107</ispartof><rights>2020 International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics</rights><rights>2020 International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3294-dc39059d92fe06d4fbad16e7cc8ad569ee91a624273cedf4de72e37687a2ad283</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3294-dc39059d92fe06d4fbad16e7cc8ad569ee91a624273cedf4de72e37687a2ad283</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002%2Fijgo.13154$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002%2Fijgo.13154$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,1411,27903,27904,45553,45554</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32246772$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Solaimalai, Dhanalakshmi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rathore, Swati</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Beck, Manisha M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Regi, Annie</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yesudhason, Binesh L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Veeraraghavan, Balaji</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Prakash, John A.J.</creatorcontrib><title>Enzyme‐linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) versus Venereal Disease Research Laboratory test (VDRL) and rapid plasma reagin test (RPR) for screening of syphilis in pregnant women</title><title>International journal of gynecology and obstetrics</title><addtitle>Int J Gynaecol Obstet</addtitle><description>Objective To evaluate a treponemal enzyme‐linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) as an alternative screening test for syphilis in pregnant women. Methods A cross‐sectional study of diagnostic test accuracy was carried out in a large volume laboratory from a tertiary care center. A total of 416 serum samples, including 102 archived syphilis Treponema pallidum hemagglutination (TPHA)‐positive samples and 314 samples from pregnant women, were used to determine the sensitivity and specificity of ELISA. All the samples were subjected to Venereal Disease Research Laboratory (VDRL), rapid plasma reagin (RPR), ELISA, and TPHA tests. Performance characteristics of VDRL, RPR, and ELISA were calculated with TPHA as a reference standard test. Results VDRL and RPR exhibited higher false positivity of 10.5% and 9.6%, respectively, compared to 2.5% by ELISA. The sensitivity and specificity of ELISA were 98% and 97.5%, of VDRL were 71.6% and 89.5%, and of RPR were 73.5% and 90.5%, respectively. Moreover, ELISA had an excellent agreement (kappa=0.9) with TPHA compared to VDRL/RPR which had a moderate agreement (kappa=0.6) only. Conclusion ELISA has the potential to replace VDRL/RPR as a screening test for syphilis in centers that can perform ELISA, especially for antenatal screening. The cross‐sectional study of diagnostic test accuracy found that treponemal ELISA can replace VDRL or RPR for screening of syphilis in pregnant women.</description><subject>Enzyme‐linked immunosorbent assay</subject><subject>Rapid plasma reagin</subject><subject>Screening</subject><subject>Sexually transmitted infections</subject><subject>Syphilis</subject><subject>Venereal Disease Research Laboratory</subject><issn>0020-7292</issn><issn>1879-3479</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2020</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp90cFu00AQBuAVAtFQuPAAaI4JktvdteO1j1UbSpClVgF6tTbecbrF3nV3Eipz4hF4Fh6JJ2FLAkdOc5hvfo30M_Za8BPBuTy1dxt_IlIxz56wiShUmaSZKp-ySVzyRMlSHrEXRHecc6GEeM6OUimzXCk5YT8X7tvY46_vPzrrvqAB2_c758mHNbotaCI9wnRRLT-ezeArBtoR3KDDgLqDC0uoCWGFcYbmFiq99kFvfRhhi7SF6c3FqpqBdgaCHqyBodPUa4jXG-sOZnW9mkHrA1ATEJ11G_At0Djc2s4SRDcE3Dgd33nwPbqX7FmrO8JXh3nMPr9bfDp_n1RXl8vzsyppUllmiWnSks9LU8oWeW6ydq2NyFE1TaHNPC8RS6FzmUmVNmjazKCSmKq8UFpqI4v0mE33uUPw97v4at1barDrtEO_o1qmRR5ZruaRvt3TJniigG09BNvrMNaC148d1Y8d1X86ivjNIXe37tH8o39LiUDswYPtcPxPVL38cHm1D_0Ngg-f3g</recordid><startdate>202007</startdate><enddate>202007</enddate><creator>Solaimalai, Dhanalakshmi</creator><creator>Rathore, Swati</creator><creator>Beck, Manisha M.</creator><creator>Regi, Annie</creator><creator>Yesudhason, Binesh L.</creator><creator>Veeraraghavan, Balaji</creator><creator>Prakash, John A.J.</creator><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>202007</creationdate><title>Enzyme‐linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) versus Venereal Disease Research Laboratory test (VDRL) and rapid plasma reagin test (RPR) for screening of syphilis in pregnant women</title><author>Solaimalai, Dhanalakshmi ; Rathore, Swati ; Beck, Manisha M. ; Regi, Annie ; Yesudhason, Binesh L. ; Veeraraghavan, Balaji ; Prakash, John A.J.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3294-dc39059d92fe06d4fbad16e7cc8ad569ee91a624273cedf4de72e37687a2ad283</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2020</creationdate><topic>Enzyme‐linked immunosorbent assay</topic><topic>Rapid plasma reagin</topic><topic>Screening</topic><topic>Sexually transmitted infections</topic><topic>Syphilis</topic><topic>Venereal Disease Research Laboratory</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Solaimalai, Dhanalakshmi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rathore, Swati</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Beck, Manisha M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Regi, Annie</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yesudhason, Binesh L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Veeraraghavan, Balaji</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Prakash, John A.J.</creatorcontrib><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>International journal of gynecology and obstetrics</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Solaimalai, Dhanalakshmi</au><au>Rathore, Swati</au><au>Beck, Manisha M.</au><au>Regi, Annie</au><au>Yesudhason, Binesh L.</au><au>Veeraraghavan, Balaji</au><au>Prakash, John A.J.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Enzyme‐linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) versus Venereal Disease Research Laboratory test (VDRL) and rapid plasma reagin test (RPR) for screening of syphilis in pregnant women</atitle><jtitle>International journal of gynecology and obstetrics</jtitle><addtitle>Int J Gynaecol Obstet</addtitle><date>2020-07</date><risdate>2020</risdate><volume>150</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>103</spage><epage>107</epage><pages>103-107</pages><issn>0020-7292</issn><eissn>1879-3479</eissn><abstract>Objective To evaluate a treponemal enzyme‐linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) as an alternative screening test for syphilis in pregnant women. Methods A cross‐sectional study of diagnostic test accuracy was carried out in a large volume laboratory from a tertiary care center. A total of 416 serum samples, including 102 archived syphilis Treponema pallidum hemagglutination (TPHA)‐positive samples and 314 samples from pregnant women, were used to determine the sensitivity and specificity of ELISA. All the samples were subjected to Venereal Disease Research Laboratory (VDRL), rapid plasma reagin (RPR), ELISA, and TPHA tests. Performance characteristics of VDRL, RPR, and ELISA were calculated with TPHA as a reference standard test. Results VDRL and RPR exhibited higher false positivity of 10.5% and 9.6%, respectively, compared to 2.5% by ELISA. The sensitivity and specificity of ELISA were 98% and 97.5%, of VDRL were 71.6% and 89.5%, and of RPR were 73.5% and 90.5%, respectively. Moreover, ELISA had an excellent agreement (kappa=0.9) with TPHA compared to VDRL/RPR which had a moderate agreement (kappa=0.6) only. Conclusion ELISA has the potential to replace VDRL/RPR as a screening test for syphilis in centers that can perform ELISA, especially for antenatal screening. The cross‐sectional study of diagnostic test accuracy found that treponemal ELISA can replace VDRL or RPR for screening of syphilis in pregnant women.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pmid>32246772</pmid><doi>10.1002/ijgo.13154</doi><tpages>5</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0020-7292
ispartof International journal of gynecology and obstetrics, 2020-07, Vol.150 (1), p.103-107
issn 0020-7292
1879-3479
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2386283675
source Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete
subjects Enzyme‐linked immunosorbent assay
Rapid plasma reagin
Screening
Sexually transmitted infections
Syphilis
Venereal Disease Research Laboratory
title Enzyme‐linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) versus Venereal Disease Research Laboratory test (VDRL) and rapid plasma reagin test (RPR) for screening of syphilis in pregnant women
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-25T05%3A15%3A17IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Enzyme%E2%80%90linked%20immunosorbent%20assay%20(ELISA)%20versus%20Venereal%20Disease%20Research%20Laboratory%20test%20(VDRL)%20and%20rapid%20plasma%20reagin%20test%20(RPR)%20for%20screening%20of%20syphilis%20in%20pregnant%20women&rft.jtitle=International%20journal%20of%20gynecology%20and%20obstetrics&rft.au=Solaimalai,%20Dhanalakshmi&rft.date=2020-07&rft.volume=150&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=103&rft.epage=107&rft.pages=103-107&rft.issn=0020-7292&rft.eissn=1879-3479&rft_id=info:doi/10.1002/ijgo.13154&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2386283675%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2386283675&rft_id=info:pmid/32246772&rfr_iscdi=true