Chlamydia antibody testing and diagnosing tubal pathology in subfertile women: an individual patient data meta-analysis

Simple item page
dc.contributor.authorBroeze, K.
dc.contributor.authorOpmeer, B.
dc.contributor.authorCoppus, S.
dc.contributor.authorVan Geloven, N.
dc.contributor.authorAlves, M.
dc.contributor.authorAnestad, G.
dc.contributor.authorBhattacharya, S.
dc.contributor.authorAllan, J.
dc.contributor.authorGuerra-Infante, M.
dc.contributor.authorDen Hartog, J.
dc.contributor.authorLand, J.
dc.contributor.authorIdahl, A.
dc.contributor.authorvan der Linden, P.
dc.contributor.authorMouton, J.
dc.contributor.authorNg, E.
dc.contributor.authorvan der Steeg, J.
dc.contributor.authorSteures, P.
dc.contributor.authorSvenstrup, H.
dc.contributor.authorTiitinen, A.
dc.contributor.authorToye, B.
dc.contributor.authoret al.
dc.date.issued2011
dc.description.abstractBACKGROUND The Chlamydia IgG antibody test (CAT) shows considerable variations in reported estimates of test accuracy, partly because of the use of different assays and cut-off values. The aim of this study was to reassess the accuracy of CAT in diagnosing tubal pathology by individual patient data (IPD) meta-analysis for three different CAT assays. METHODS We approached authors of primary studies that used micro-immunofluorescence tests (MIF), immunofluorescence tests (IF) or enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay tests (ELISA). Using the obtained IPD, we performed pooled receiver operator characteristics analysis and logistic regression analysis with a random effects model to compare the three assays. Tubal pathology was defined as either any tubal obstruction or bilateral tubal obstruction. RESULTS We acquired data of 14 primary studies containing data of 6191 women, of which data of 3453 women were available for analysis. The areas under the curve for ELISA, IF and MIF were 0.64, 0.65 and 0.75, respectively (P-value < 0.001) for any tubal pathology and 0.66, 0.66 and 0.77, respectively (P-value = 0.01) for bilateral tubal pathology. CONCLUSIONS In Chlamydia antibody testing, MIF is superior in the assessment of tubal pathology. In the initial screen for tubal pathology MIF should therefore be the test of first choice.
dc.description.statementofresponsibilityK.A. Broeze ... B.W. Mol ... et al.
dc.identifier.citationHuman Reproduction Update, 2011; 17(3):301-310
dc.identifier.doi10.1093/humupd/dmq060
dc.identifier.issn1355-4786
dc.identifier.issn1460-2369
dc.identifier.orcidMol, B. [0000-0001-6887-0262] [0000-0001-8337-550X]
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/2440/88500
dc.language.isoen
dc.publisherOxford University Press
dc.rights© The Author 2011.
dc.source.urihttps://doi.org/10.1093/humupd/dmq060
dc.subjectHumans
dc.subjectChlamydia trachomatis
dc.subjectChlamydia Infections
dc.subjectFallopian Tube Diseases
dc.subjectImmunoglobulin G
dc.subjectFluorescent Antibody Technique
dc.subjectEnzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay
dc.subjectSensitivity and Specificity
dc.subjectResearch Design
dc.subjectFemale
dc.titleChlamydia antibody testing and diagnosing tubal pathology in subfertile women: an individual patient data meta-analysis
dc.typeJournal article
pubs.publication-statusPublished

Files

Collections

Paediatrics publications