English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

he use of cell culture systems for the detection of Calamydia tracaomatis is the gold standard. However, the sensitivity of a single endocervical specimen may be only 70-90.eUnfortunately, cell culture is labor intensive and requires 48 hours for completion. These problems fostered the development of simplified rapid diagnostic tests which bypassed the issue of organism viability. The first detection systems were based on either immunodetection of solubilized chlamydia antigens (enzyme immunoassay) or direct visualization using chlamydia-specific fluorescin-conjugated monoclonal antibodies (direct fluorescent antibody test). The relative sensitivity and poorer positive predictive values of these methods led ulti:mately to their relative abandonment in favor of tests based on DNA/rRNA hybridization. The ability of the DNA probe to detect both Neisseria gonorroeae and C. tracomatis in a single test has made nucleic acid probe testing an attractive alternative. The long-term cost of falsenegative gonococcal cultures outweighed the cost differential between properly handled specific cultures for N. gonorroeae and 6: tracomatis and a DNA probe (Table 1).

The Potential Misuse of DNA Probe for the Detection of Neisseria gonorrhoeae and Chlamydía trachomatis When Used for Test of Cure