Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2002 Aug;78(4):282-5.
doi: 10.1136/sti.78.4.282.

Performance of the rapid plasma reagin and the rapid syphilis screening tests in the diagnosis of syphilis in field conditions in rural Africa

Affiliations
Comparative Study

Performance of the rapid plasma reagin and the rapid syphilis screening tests in the diagnosis of syphilis in field conditions in rural Africa

B West et al. Sex Transm Infect. 2002 Aug.

Abstract

Objectives: To assess the rapid plasma reagin (RPR) test performance in the field and to evaluate a new rapid syphilis test (RST) as a primary screen for syphilis.

Methods: 1325 women of reproductive age from rural communities in the Gambia were tested for syphilis seropositivity using a RPR 18 mm circle card and a RST strip. Within 1 week a repeat RPR and a TPHA test were carried out using standard techniques in the laboratory.

Results: Comparing field tests to a diagnosis of "active" syphilis defined as laboratory RPR and TPHA positive, the RPR test was 77.5% sensitive and 94.1% specific; the RST was 75.0% sensitive and 95.2% specific. The RST was easier to use and interpret than the RPR test especially where field conditions were difficult. In this setting with a low prevalence of syphilis in the community (3%), the chance of someone with a positive test being confirmed as having serologically active syphilis was less than 50% for both tests.

Conclusions: The appropriateness of syphilis screening using RPR testing in antenatal clinics and health centres should be questioned if there is a low prevalence in the population, conditions for testing are poor, and resources limited. There is still an urgent need for an appropriate rapid syphilis test for field use.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Lancet. 1999 Nov 20;354(9192):1776-81 - PubMed
    1. J Clin Microbiol. 2000 Mar;38(3):1279-82 - PubMed
    1. Curr Opin Urol. 1999 Jan;9(1):31-7 - PubMed
    1. Sex Transm Infect. 2000 Oct;76(5):403-5 - PubMed
    1. Lancet. 2001 Apr 14;357(9263):1161-7 - PubMed

Publication types