[Diagnosis of chlamydial infections--personal experience].

OBJECTIVES In this paper we evaluated the difference of analytic sensitivity, specificity and predictive values using immunoassays based on antigen detection of Chlamydia trachomatis (Ct) in endocervical swab specimens. PATIENTS AND METHODS 120 fertile female patients were tested for the presence of Ct in the endocervix during two years. The patients represented two risk groups: moderate risk, and low risk group. Three endocervical swab specimens per each patient were collected and each of specimens was analyzed with: DFA-Direct Fluorescence Assay; RIA-Rapid Immunoassay, EIA-Enzyme Immunoassay RESULTS Total 8 (6.67%) patients were positive on Ct. Out of that 5 (8.33%) were from moderate risk (DFA and EIA), and 3 (5%) from low risk group (DFA and EIA, RIA). 4 (6.67%) out of 5 patients were found positive from moderate risk group by RIA, and 3 (5%) from low risk group (DFA and EIA, RIA). DFA has some results as EIA: sensitivity and specificity are 100%. RIA has sensitivity 87.5% and specificity 100%. Predictive values (PPV, NPV): PPV is the same for the three test assays, and it is 100%. NPV for RIA is 99.1% and for DFA and EIA is 100%. Total prevalence for RIA is 5.83% and for DFA and EIA is 6.66%. CONCLUSION It was proved that there was some significant difference in validity of applicable immunoassays (DFA and EIA, and RIA), particularly in analytic sensitivity (100% DFA versus 87.5% RIA). With difference to RIA and EIA, DFA does not request confirmation using another method (WHO), which is of great importance for us. Therefore we consider DFA as a method of choice for our conditions.