 |
 |

Blinded Proficiency Testing of FTA-ABS Test
Glenn L. Goodhart, MD;
Stuart T. Brown, MD;
Akbar A. Zaidi, MS;
Victoria Pope;
Sandra Larsen, MS;
James E. Barrow
Arch Intern Med. 1981;141(8):1045-1050.
Abstract
In 1976 and 1977, 28 state laboratories participated in a blinded proficiency testing study of syphilis serologic tests. The test consisted of a battery of 50 duplicate reagin-positive sera; 12 specimens were obtained from syphilitic patients. The median reproducibility scores for the VDRL and FTA-ABS tests were the same, 92%, and the scores for the two tests were correlated. Given the relatively low prevalence of untreated syphilis in the United States today, serologic results that are highly predictive of syphilis are obtainable only from the most proficient laboratories, if unselected sera are tested. Reactivity in the VDRL and FTA-ABS tests does not prove the diagnosis of syphilis. Physicians must use clinical judgment to preselect patients for serologic testing.
(Arch Intern Med 1981;141:1045-1050)
Author Affiliations
From Venereal Disease Control Division, Bureau of State Services (Drs Goodhart and Brown and Messrs Zaidi and Barrow), and the Bacteriology Division, Bureau of Laboratories (Ms Pope and Larsen), Centers for Disease Control, Public Health Service, Department of Health and Human Services, Atlanta.
Footnotes
Accepted for publication June 12, 1980.
Read before the 107th annual meeting of the American Public Health Association, New York, Nov 6, 1979.
Reprint requests to Centers for Disease Control, Technical Information Services, Atlanta, GA 30333 (Dr Goodhart).
CiteULike Connotea Del.icio.us Digg Reddit Technorati Twitter
What's this?
THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES
Neurosyphilis and Cerebrospinal Fluid Tests
SPERBER et al.
ANN INTERN MED 1986;104:724-726.
ABSTRACT
Diagnostic Decision: Syphilis Tests in Diagnostic and Therapeutic Decision Making
HART
ANN INTERN MED 1986;104:368-376.
ABSTRACT
Laws Mandating Premarital Serologic Tests for Syphilis Should Be Repealed
Felman
Arch Dermatol 1982;118:145-146.
ABSTRACT
|