File Download

There are no files associated with this item.

  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)
Supplementary

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

TitleChlamydia antibody testing and diagnosing tubal pathology in subfertile women: An individual patient data meta-analysis
Authors
KeywordsChlamydia antibody test
Individual patient data meta-analysis
Systematic review
Tubal pathology
Issue Date2011
PublisherOxford University Press. The Journal's web site is located at http://humupd.oxfordjournals.org
Citation
Human Reproduction Update, 2011, v. 17 n. 3, p. 301-310 How to Cite?
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. © The Author 2011. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology. All rights reserved.
Persistent Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/134488
ISSN
2015 Impact Factor: 11.194
2015 SCImago Journal Rankings: 4.678
ISI Accession Number ID
Funding AgencyGrant Number
ZonMW90700201
Funding Information:

This study was financially supported by ZonMW. Grant number 90700201.

References

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorBroeze, KAen_HK
dc.contributor.authorOpmeer, BCen_HK
dc.contributor.authorCoppus, SFPJen_HK
dc.contributor.authorVan Geloven, Nen_HK
dc.contributor.authorAlves, MFCen_HK
dc.contributor.authorÅnestad, Gen_HK
dc.contributor.authorBhattacharya, Sen_HK
dc.contributor.authorAllan, Jen_HK
dc.contributor.authorGuerraInfante, MFen_HK
dc.contributor.authorDen Hartog, JEen_HK
dc.contributor.authorLand, JAen_HK
dc.contributor.authorIdahl, Aen_HK
dc.contributor.authorVan der Linden, PJQen_HK
dc.contributor.authorMouton, JWen_HK
dc.contributor.authorNg, EHYen_HK
dc.contributor.authorVan der Steeg, JWen_HK
dc.contributor.authorSteures, Pen_HK
dc.contributor.authorSvenstrup, HFen_HK
dc.contributor.authorTiitinen, Aen_HK
dc.contributor.authorToye, Ben_HK
dc.contributor.authorVan der Veenen_HK
dc.contributor.authorMol, BWen_HK
dc.date.accessioned2011-06-17T09:21:58Z-
dc.date.available2011-06-17T09:21:58Z-
dc.date.issued2011en_HK
dc.identifier.citationHuman Reproduction Update, 2011, v. 17 n. 3, p. 301-310en_HK
dc.identifier.issn1355-4786en_HK
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/134488-
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. © The Author 2011. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology. All rights reserved.en_HK
dc.languageengen_US
dc.publisherOxford University Press. The Journal's web site is located at http://humupd.oxfordjournals.orgen_HK
dc.relation.ispartofHuman Reproduction Updateen_HK
dc.subjectChlamydia antibody testen_HK
dc.subjectIndividual patient data meta-analysisen_HK
dc.subjectSystematic reviewen_HK
dc.subjectTubal pathologyen_HK
dc.titleChlamydia antibody testing and diagnosing tubal pathology in subfertile women: An individual patient data meta-analysisen_HK
dc.typeArticleen_HK
dc.identifier.openurlhttp://library.hku.hk:4550/resserv?sid=HKU:IR&issn=1355-4786&volume=17&issue=3&spage=301&epage=310&date=2011&atitle=Chlamydia+antibody+testing+and+diagnosing+tubal+pathology+in+subfertile+women:+an+individual+patient+data+meta-analysis-
dc.identifier.emailNg, EHY:nghye@hkucc.hku.hken_HK
dc.identifier.authorityNg, EHY=rp00426en_HK
dc.description.naturelink_to_subscribed_fulltext-
dc.identifier.doi10.1093/humupd/dmq060en_HK
dc.identifier.pmid21227996-
dc.identifier.scopuseid_2-s2.0-79954473219en_HK
dc.identifier.hkuros185500en_US
dc.relation.referenceshttp://www.scopus.com/mlt/select.url?eid=2-s2.0-79954473219&selection=ref&src=s&origin=recordpageen_HK
dc.identifier.volume17en_HK
dc.identifier.issue3en_HK
dc.identifier.spage301en_HK
dc.identifier.epage310en_HK
dc.identifier.eissn1460-2369-
dc.identifier.isiWOS:000289312300002-
dc.publisher.placeUnited Kingdomen_HK
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridBroeze, KA=14218851000en_HK
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridOpmeer, BC=6603316333en_HK
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridCoppus, SFPJ=14832256300en_HK
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridVan Geloven, N=26636188600en_HK
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridAlves, MFC=14013685500en_HK
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridÅnestad, G=6603929814en_HK
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridBhattacharya, S=7404284024en_HK
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridAllan, J=7202917476en_HK
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridGuerraInfante, MF=37088672200en_HK
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridDen Hartog, JE=24472947600en_HK
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridLand, JA=7004561382en_HK
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridIdahl, A=6504403801en_HK
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridVan der Linden, PJQ=7006186214en_HK
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridMouton, JW=35472777000en_HK
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridNg, EHY=35238184300en_HK
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridVan der Steeg, JW=6603108697en_HK
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridSteures, P=6603289741en_HK
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridSvenstrup, HF=6506491267en_HK
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridTiitinen, A=7005156661en_HK
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridToye, B=7004927001en_HK
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridVan der Veen=7005110784en_HK
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridMol, BW=35885117500en_HK

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats