Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Early Access
    • Multimedia
    • Podcast
    • Collections
    • Past Issues
    • Articles by Subject
    • Articles by Type
    • Supplements
    • Plain Language Summaries
    • Calls for Papers
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Reviewers
    • Job Seekers
    • Media
  • About
    • Annals of Family Medicine
    • Editorial Staff & Boards
    • Sponsoring Organizations
    • Copyrights & Permissions
    • Announcements
  • Engage
    • Engage
    • e-Letters (Comments)
    • Subscribe
    • Podcast
    • E-mail Alerts
    • Journal Club
    • RSS
    • Annals Forum (Archive)
  • Contact
    • Contact Us
  • Careers

User menu

  • My alerts

Search

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

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Early Access
    • Multimedia
    • Podcast
    • Collections
    • Past Issues
    • Articles by Subject
    • Articles by Type
    • Supplements
    • Plain Language Summaries
    • Calls for Papers
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Reviewers
    • Job Seekers
    • Media
  • About
    • Annals of Family Medicine
    • Editorial Staff & Boards
    • Sponsoring Organizations
    • Copyrights & Permissions
    • Announcements
  • Engage
    • Engage
    • e-Letters (Comments)
    • Subscribe
    • Podcast
    • E-mail Alerts
    • Journal Club
    • RSS
    • Annals Forum (Archive)
  • Contact
    • 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
MB, ChB, DPH
  • 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
MB, ChB, MD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
J. Elisabeth Wells
PhD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Edward Coughlan
MB, ChB, FAChSHM
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Sue Bagshaw
MB, ChB
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Paul Corwin
MB, ChB
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Stephen Chambers
MB, ChB, MD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Les Toop
MB, ChB, MD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • eLetters
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Article Figures & Data

Figures

  • Additional Files
  • Figure 1
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 1

    Recruitment flowchart.

    FVU = first-void urine.

Additional Files

  • Figures
  • The Article in Brief

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

    Derelie Mangin , and colleagues

    Background First-void urine specimens are used to test for Chlamydia trachomatis, the most common sexually transmitted bacterial infection, whereas midstream urine specimens are 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 primary care practice. This pilot study set out to determine how many positive results obtained on first-void specimens would be missed if a midstream specimen were used.

    What This Study Found First-void and midstream urine sampling had similar diagnostic accuracy for C trachomatis testing. Of 100 patients with a first-void specimen positive for C trachomatis, 96 also had a positive midstream specimen.

    Implications

    • Timing of urine specimen collection may not be as important in testing for C trachomatis as previously thought. If the results of this pilot study are confirmed, midstream urine specimens may be sufficiently equivalent to testing on first-void urine specimens for use in clinical practice as a case finding tool.
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

The Annals of Family Medicine: 10 (1)
The Annals of Family Medicine: 10 (1)
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.
3 + 5 =
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
Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

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

Related Articles

  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • Vaginal Swab vs Urine for Detection of Chlamydia trachomatis, Neisseria gonorrhoeae, and Trichomonas vaginalis: A Meta-Analysis
  • Testing Midstream Urine for Chlamydia trachomatis
  • In This Issue: Challenges of Managing Multimorbidity
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Performance-Based Reimbursement, Illegitimate Tasks, Moral Distress, and Quality Care in Primary Care: A Mediation Model of Longitudinal Data
  • Adverse Outcomes Associated With Inhaled Corticosteroid Use in Individuals With Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
  • Family-Based Interventions to Promote Weight Management in Adults: Results From a Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial in India
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
  • Early Access
  • Plain-Language Summaries
  • Multimedia
  • Podcast
  • Articles by Type
  • Articles by Subject
  • Supplements
  • Calls for Papers

Info for

  • Authors
  • Reviewers
  • Job Seekers
  • Media

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

© 2025 Annals of Family Medicine