Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Online First
    • Multimedia
    • Collections
    • Past Issues
    • Articles by Subject
    • Articles by Type
    • Supplements
    • The Issue in Brief (Plain Language Summaries)
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Reviewers
    • Media
    • Job Seekers
  • About
    • Annals of Family Medicine
    • Editorial Staff & Boards
    • Sponsoring Organizations
    • Copyrights & Permissions
    • Announcements
  • Engage
    • Engage
    • e-Letters (Comments)
    • Subscribe
    • RSS
    • Email Alerts
    • Journal Club
  • Contact
    • Feedback
    • Contact Us
  • Careers

User menu

  • My alerts

Search

  • Advanced search
Annals of Family Medicine
  • My alerts
Annals of Family Medicine

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Online First
    • Multimedia
    • Collections
    • Past Issues
    • Articles by Subject
    • Articles by Type
    • Supplements
    • The Issue in Brief (Plain Language Summaries)
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Reviewers
    • Media
    • Job Seekers
  • About
    • Annals of Family Medicine
    • Editorial Staff & Boards
    • Sponsoring Organizations
    • Copyrights & Permissions
    • Announcements
  • Engage
    • Engage
    • e-Letters (Comments)
    • Subscribe
    • RSS
    • Email Alerts
    • Journal Club
  • Contact
    • Feedback
    • Contact Us
  • Careers
  • Follow annalsfm on Twitter
  • Visit annalsfm on Facebook
Research ArticleOriginal Research

Chlamydia trachomatis Testing Sensitivity in Midstream Compared With First-Void Urine Specimens

Derelie Mangin, David Murdoch, J. Elisabeth Wells, Edward Coughlan, Sue Bagshaw, Paul Corwin, Stephen Chambers and Les Toop
The Annals of Family Medicine January 2012, 10 (1) 50-53; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1370/afm.1323
Derelie Mangin
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: dee.mangin@otago.ac.nz
David Murdoch
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
J. Elisabeth Wells
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Edward Coughlan
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Sue Bagshaw
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Paul Corwin
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Stephen Chambers
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Les Toop
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

PURPOSE Traditionally first-void urine specimens are used to test for Chlamydia trachomatis. In contrast, midstream urine specimens are traditionally recommended for microscopy and culture of presumptive bacterial urinary tract infections. The ability to test for both C trachomatis and urinary tract infection on a single midstream urine specimen would greatly aid clinical practice, as an urinary tract infection is an extremely common complaint in primary care. This study set out to determine how well positive C trachomatis results obtained on first-void specimens would correlate with positive findings in matched midstream specimens.

METHODS One hundred women with a first-void urine specimen positive for C trachomatis also provided midstream specimens for comparison. All specimens had C trachomatis testing performed using a DNA detection method.

RESULTS Of the 100 eligible participants with a first-void specimen positive for C trachomatis, 96 (96%) also had a positive midstream specimen (95% exact confidence limits, 90.1%, 98.9%).

CONCLUSIONS These results suggest that by using newer nucleic acid amplification techniques (NAATs), timing of specimen collection is not so important in testing for C trachomatis as previously thought. The sensitivity of NAAT testing on midstream urine specimens in women is sufficiently equivalent to testing on first-void specimens to consider in clinical practice and research settings where first-void specimens have formerly been collected.

  • Chlamydia trachomatis
  • urinary tract infections
  • Received for publication June 26, 2010.
  • Revision received June 7, 2011.
  • Accepted for publication July 7, 2011.
  • © 2012 Annals of Family Medicine, Inc.
View Full Text
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

The Annals of Family Medicine: 10 (1)
The Annals of Family Medicine
Vol. 10, Issue 1
January/February 2012
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
  • In Brief
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Annals of Family Medicine.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Chlamydia trachomatis Testing Sensitivity in Midstream Compared With First-Void Urine Specimens
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Annals of Family Medicine
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Annals of Family Medicine web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
1 + 4 =
Solve this simple math problem and enter the result. E.g. for 1+3, enter 4.
Citation Tools
Chlamydia trachomatis Testing Sensitivity in Midstream Compared With First-Void Urine Specimens
Derelie Mangin, David Murdoch, J. Elisabeth Wells, Edward Coughlan, Sue Bagshaw, Paul Corwin, Stephen Chambers, Les Toop
The Annals of Family Medicine Jan 2012, 10 (1) 50-53; DOI: 10.1370/afm.1323

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Get Permissions
Share
Chlamydia trachomatis Testing Sensitivity in Midstream Compared With First-Void Urine Specimens
Derelie Mangin, David Murdoch, J. Elisabeth Wells, Edward Coughlan, Sue Bagshaw, Paul Corwin, Stephen Chambers, Les Toop
The Annals of Family Medicine Jan 2012, 10 (1) 50-53; DOI: 10.1370/afm.1323
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • INTRODUCTION
    • METHODS
    • RESULTS
    • DISCUSSION
    • Acknowledgements
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • Testing Midstream Urine for Chlamydia trachomatis
  • In This Issue: Challenges of Managing Multimorbidity
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • COPD Population in US Primary Care: Data From the Optimum Patient Care DARTNet Research Database and the Advancing the Patient Experience in COPD Registry
  • Remote Delivery in Reproductive Health Care: Operation of Direct-to-Patient Telehealth Medication Abortion Services in Diverse Settings
  • Strategies Associated With Reducing Benzodiazepine Prescribing to Older Adults: A Mixed Methods Study
Show more Original Research

Similar Articles

Subjects

  • Domains of illness & health:
    • Acute illness
  • Person groups:
    • Women's health
  • Methods:
    • Quantitative methods

Content

  • Current Issue
  • Past Issues
  • Past Issues in Brief
  • Multimedia
  • Articles by Type
  • Articles by Subject
  • Multimedia
  • Supplements
  • Online First

Info for

  • Authors
  • Reviewers
  • Media
  • Job Seekers

Engage

  • E-mail Alerts
  • e-Letters (Comments)
  • RSS
  • Journal Club
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Subscribe
  • Family Medicine Careers

About

  • About Us
  • Editorial Board & Staff
  • Sponsoring Organizations
  • Copyrights & Permissions
  • Contact Us
  • eLetter/Comments Policy

© 2022 Annals of Family Medicine