Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

Traditional versus reverse syphilis algorithms: A comparison at a large academic medical center.

OBJECTIVES: An increasing number of institutions are transitioning from the traditional syphilis testing algorithm (initial screening with nontreponemal tests) to the 'reverse' algorithm (initial screening with treponemal tests such as syphilis IgG). The aim of this study was to evaluate the switch in syphilis algorithm at an academic medical center with a population with low syphilis prevalence.

DESIGN AND METHODS: We performed a six-year retrospective study at the University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics, an academic medical center, comparing the traditional algorithm (n=12,612) with the reverse algorithm (n=10,453). False positives were considered to be positive screens with negative confirmatory testing.

RESULTS: Using the traditional algorithm, 93 samples (0.7% of total) screened positive with RPR, with 40 of these samples having negative TP-PA testing (43% of positive screens, 0.3% of total). Using the reverse algorithm, 110 screened positive with syphilis IgG (1.1% of total), and 33 of these samples had both negative RPR and TP-PA (30% of positive screens, 0.3% of total). In both algorithms, higher RPR titers and syphilis IgG values were associated with increased probability of positive confirmation.

CONCLUSIONS: In this study at an academic medical center, the reverse algorithm had significantly more total positive screens than the traditional algorithm. Both algorithms produced equivalent rates of active infection. The quantitative difference in positives between the two algorithms are the category of patients who are syphilis IgG positive, RPR non-reactive, and TP-PA reactive. Specimens with higher RPR titers and syphilis IgG values are more likely to confirm positive.

Full text links

We have located links that may give you full text access.
Can't access the paper?
Try logging in through your university/institutional subscription. For a smoother one-click institutional access experience, please use our mobile app.

Related Resources

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Mobile app image

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.

By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.

Your Privacy Choices Toggle icon

You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app