The Experts below are selected from a list of 17829 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Christina A. Muzny - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Optimal Timing for Trichomonas vaginalis Test of Cure Using Nucleic Acid Amplification Testing
Sexually transmitted diseases, 2019Co-Authors: Megan Clare Craig-kuhn, Christina A. Muzny, Charleigh Granade, Barbara Van Der Pol, Rebecca A. Lillis, Stephanie N. Taylor, Norine Schmidt, David H. Martin, Patricia KissingerAbstract:BackgroundThe optimal timing for Nucleic Acid Amplification testing (NAAT) posttreatment for Trichomonas vaginalis has not been fully established. Testing too soon posttreatment may detect remnant Nucleic Acid that is not from viable organisms, falsely misclassifying person as infected. The purpose
-
Trichomonas vaginalis Nucleic Acid Amplification Testing at an Urban HIV Clinic.
Sexually transmitted diseases, 2016Co-Authors: Christina A. Muzny, Greer A. Burkholder, Karen Fry, Erika L. Austin, Jane R. SchwebkeAbstract:BackgroundTrichomonas vaginalis is the most common nonviral sexually transmitted infection. T. vaginalis Nucleic Acid Amplification testing (NAAT) recently became available at the University of Alabama at Birmingham human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) clinic. The objective of this study was to determ
Jane R. Schwebke - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Trichomonas vaginalis Nucleic Acid Amplification Testing at an Urban HIV Clinic.
Sexually transmitted diseases, 2016Co-Authors: Christina A. Muzny, Greer A. Burkholder, Karen Fry, Erika L. Austin, Jane R. SchwebkeAbstract:BackgroundTrichomonas vaginalis is the most common nonviral sexually transmitted infection. T. vaginalis Nucleic Acid Amplification testing (NAAT) recently became available at the University of Alabama at Birmingham human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) clinic. The objective of this study was to determ
John M Colford - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Nucleic Acid Amplification tests in the diagnosis of tuberculous pleuritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis
BMC Infectious Diseases, 2004Co-Authors: Madhukar Pai, Laura L Flores, Alan Hubbard, Lee W Riley, John M ColfordAbstract:Background Conventional tests for tuberculous pleuritis have several limitations. A variety of new, rapid tests such as Nucleic Acid Amplification tests – including polymerase chain reaction – have been evaluated in recent times. We conducted a systematic review to determine the accuracy of Nucleic Acid Amplification (NAA) tests in the diagnosis of tuberculous pleuritis. Methods A systematic review and meta-analysis of 38 English and Spanish articles (with 40 studies), identified via searches of six electronic databases, hand searching of selected journals, and contact with authors, experts, and test manufacturers. Sensitivity, specificity, and other measures of accuracy were pooled using random effects models. Summary receiver operating characteristic curves were used to summarize overall test performance. Heterogeneity in study results was formally explored using subgroup analyses. Results Of the 40 studies included, 26 used in-house ("home-brew") tests, and 14 used commercial tests. Commercial tests had a low overall sensitivity (0.62; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.43, 0.77), and high specificity (0.98; 95% CI 0.96, 0.98). The positive and negative likelihood ratios for commercial tests were 25.4 (95% CI 16.2, 40.0) and 0.40 (95% CI 0.24, 0.67), respectively. All commercial tests had consistently high specificity estimates; the sensitivity estimates, however, were heterogeneous across studies. With the in-house tests, both sensitivity and specificity estimates were significantly heterogeneous. Clinically meaningful summary estimates could not be determined for in-house tests. Conclusions Our results suggest that commercial NAA tests may have a potential role in confirming (ruling in) tuberculous pleuritis. However, these tests have low and variable sensitivity and, therefore, may not be useful in excluding (ruling out) the disease. NAA test results, therefore, cannot replace conventional tests; they need to be interpreted in parallel with clinical findings and results of conventional tests. The accuracy of in-house Nucleic Acid Amplification tests is poorly defined because of heterogeneity in study results. The clinical applicability of in-house NAA tests remains unclear.
-
Nucleic Acid Amplification tests in the diagnosis of tuberculous pleuritis a systematic review and meta analysis
BMC Infectious Diseases, 2004Co-Authors: Madhukar Pai, Laura L Flores, Alan Hubbard, Lee W Riley, John M ColfordAbstract:Conventional tests for tuberculous pleuritis have several limitations. A variety of new, rapid tests such as Nucleic Acid Amplification tests – including polymerase chain reaction – have been evaluated in recent times. We conducted a systematic review to determine the accuracy of Nucleic Acid Amplification (NAA) tests in the diagnosis of tuberculous pleuritis. A systematic review and meta-analysis of 38 English and Spanish articles (with 40 studies), identified via searches of six electronic databases, hand searching of selected journals, and contact with authors, experts, and test manufacturers. Sensitivity, specificity, and other measures of accuracy were pooled using random effects models. Summary receiver operating characteristic curves were used to summarize overall test performance. Heterogeneity in study results was formally explored using subgroup analyses. Of the 40 studies included, 26 used in-house ("home-brew") tests, and 14 used commercial tests. Commercial tests had a low overall sensitivity (0.62; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.43, 0.77), and high specificity (0.98; 95% CI 0.96, 0.98). The positive and negative likelihood ratios for commercial tests were 25.4 (95% CI 16.2, 40.0) and 0.40 (95% CI 0.24, 0.67), respectively. All commercial tests had consistently high specificity estimates; the sensitivity estimates, however, were heterogeneous across studies. With the in-house tests, both sensitivity and specificity estimates were significantly heterogeneous. Clinically meaningful summary estimates could not be determined for in-house tests. Our results suggest that commercial NAA tests may have a potential role in confirming (ruling in) tuberculous pleuritis. However, these tests have low and variable sensitivity and, therefore, may not be useful in excluding (ruling out) the disease. NAA test results, therefore, cannot replace conventional tests; they need to be interpreted in parallel with clinical findings and results of conventional tests. The accuracy of in-house Nucleic Acid Amplification tests is poorly defined because of heterogeneity in study results. The clinical applicability of in-house NAA tests remains unclear.
Tony Kuo - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Implications of Trichomonas vaginalis Nucleic Acid Amplification Testing on Medical Training and Practice
Journal of clinical microbiology, 2013Co-Authors: Lisa V. Smith, Frank Sorvillo, Tony KuoAbstract:We read with great interest Ginocchio and colleagues' recent study on the prevalence of Trichomonas vaginalis infection and coinfection with Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhoeae ([1][1]). Based on results from Nucleic Acid Amplification testing (NAAT) of discarded urogenital samples from
Madhukar Pai - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Nucleic Acid Amplification tests in the diagnosis of tuberculous pleuritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis
BMC Infectious Diseases, 2004Co-Authors: Madhukar Pai, Laura L Flores, Alan Hubbard, Lee W Riley, John M ColfordAbstract:Background Conventional tests for tuberculous pleuritis have several limitations. A variety of new, rapid tests such as Nucleic Acid Amplification tests – including polymerase chain reaction – have been evaluated in recent times. We conducted a systematic review to determine the accuracy of Nucleic Acid Amplification (NAA) tests in the diagnosis of tuberculous pleuritis. Methods A systematic review and meta-analysis of 38 English and Spanish articles (with 40 studies), identified via searches of six electronic databases, hand searching of selected journals, and contact with authors, experts, and test manufacturers. Sensitivity, specificity, and other measures of accuracy were pooled using random effects models. Summary receiver operating characteristic curves were used to summarize overall test performance. Heterogeneity in study results was formally explored using subgroup analyses. Results Of the 40 studies included, 26 used in-house ("home-brew") tests, and 14 used commercial tests. Commercial tests had a low overall sensitivity (0.62; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.43, 0.77), and high specificity (0.98; 95% CI 0.96, 0.98). The positive and negative likelihood ratios for commercial tests were 25.4 (95% CI 16.2, 40.0) and 0.40 (95% CI 0.24, 0.67), respectively. All commercial tests had consistently high specificity estimates; the sensitivity estimates, however, were heterogeneous across studies. With the in-house tests, both sensitivity and specificity estimates were significantly heterogeneous. Clinically meaningful summary estimates could not be determined for in-house tests. Conclusions Our results suggest that commercial NAA tests may have a potential role in confirming (ruling in) tuberculous pleuritis. However, these tests have low and variable sensitivity and, therefore, may not be useful in excluding (ruling out) the disease. NAA test results, therefore, cannot replace conventional tests; they need to be interpreted in parallel with clinical findings and results of conventional tests. The accuracy of in-house Nucleic Acid Amplification tests is poorly defined because of heterogeneity in study results. The clinical applicability of in-house NAA tests remains unclear.
-
Nucleic Acid Amplification tests in the diagnosis of tuberculous pleuritis a systematic review and meta analysis
BMC Infectious Diseases, 2004Co-Authors: Madhukar Pai, Laura L Flores, Alan Hubbard, Lee W Riley, John M ColfordAbstract:Conventional tests for tuberculous pleuritis have several limitations. A variety of new, rapid tests such as Nucleic Acid Amplification tests – including polymerase chain reaction – have been evaluated in recent times. We conducted a systematic review to determine the accuracy of Nucleic Acid Amplification (NAA) tests in the diagnosis of tuberculous pleuritis. A systematic review and meta-analysis of 38 English and Spanish articles (with 40 studies), identified via searches of six electronic databases, hand searching of selected journals, and contact with authors, experts, and test manufacturers. Sensitivity, specificity, and other measures of accuracy were pooled using random effects models. Summary receiver operating characteristic curves were used to summarize overall test performance. Heterogeneity in study results was formally explored using subgroup analyses. Of the 40 studies included, 26 used in-house ("home-brew") tests, and 14 used commercial tests. Commercial tests had a low overall sensitivity (0.62; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.43, 0.77), and high specificity (0.98; 95% CI 0.96, 0.98). The positive and negative likelihood ratios for commercial tests were 25.4 (95% CI 16.2, 40.0) and 0.40 (95% CI 0.24, 0.67), respectively. All commercial tests had consistently high specificity estimates; the sensitivity estimates, however, were heterogeneous across studies. With the in-house tests, both sensitivity and specificity estimates were significantly heterogeneous. Clinically meaningful summary estimates could not be determined for in-house tests. Our results suggest that commercial NAA tests may have a potential role in confirming (ruling in) tuberculous pleuritis. However, these tests have low and variable sensitivity and, therefore, may not be useful in excluding (ruling out) the disease. NAA test results, therefore, cannot replace conventional tests; they need to be interpreted in parallel with clinical findings and results of conventional tests. The accuracy of in-house Nucleic Acid Amplification tests is poorly defined because of heterogeneity in study results. The clinical applicability of in-house NAA tests remains unclear.
