12
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      Performance of self-collected penile-meatal swabs compared to clinician-collected urethral swabs for the detection of Chlamydia trachomatis , Neisseria gonorrhoeae , Trichomonas vaginalis , and Mycoplasma genitalium by nucleic acid amplification assays

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Men were enrolled in a study to assess the performance and acceptability of self-collected penile meatal swabs as compared to clinician-collected urethral swabs for sexually transmitted infections (STIs). We expected penile-meatal swabs to perform favorably to urethral swabs for Chlamydia trachomatis (CT), Neisseria gonorrhoeae (NG), Trichomonas vaginalis (TV), and Mycoplasma genitalium (MG) detection by nucleic acid amplification assays (NAATs). Of 203 swab pairs tested; for CT, penile-meatal swab sensitivity was 96.8% and specificity was 98.8%. NG sensitivity and specificity were 100% and 98.9%, respectively. For TV, sensitivity was 85.0% and specificity was 96.7%. For MG sensitivity and specificity were 79.3% and 99.4%, respectively. No significant statistical differences between sample type accuracy (CT: P=0.625; NG: P=0.248; TV: P=0.344; and MG: P=0.070) existed. Most men, 90.1%, reported self-collection of penile-meatal swabs as "Very Easy" or "Easy". Self-collected penile-meatal swabs appeared acceptable for NAAT STI detection and an acceptable collection method by men.

          Related collections

          Author and article information

          Journal
          Diagnostic Microbiology and Infectious Disease
          Diagnostic Microbiology and Infectious Disease
          Elsevier BV
          07328893
          October 2016
          October 2016
          : 86
          : 2
          : 131-135
          Article
          10.1016/j.diagmicrobio.2016.07.018
          5028267
          27497595
          3733a4f7-d40f-429b-af0f-bdc506bd1ddc
          © 2016

          https://www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/

          History

          Comments

          Comment on this article