Tabes Dorsalis diagnostic study of choice: Difference between revisions

	Tabes Dorsalis Microchapters
Home
Patient Information
Overview
Historical Perspective
Pathophysiology
Causes
Differentiating Tabes Dorsalis from other Diseases
Epidemiology and Demographics
Risk Factors
Screening
Natural History, Complications, and Prognosis
Diagnosis
Diagnostic Study of Choice
History and Symptoms
Physical Examination
Laboratory Findings
Electrocardiogram
CT
MRI
Other Imaging Findings
Other Diagnostic Studies
Treatment
Medical Therapy
Surgery
Primary Prevention
Secondary prevention
Cost-Effectiveness of Therapy
Future or Investigational Therapies
Case Studies
Case #1
Tabes Dorsalis diagnostic study of choice On the Web
Most recent articles
Most cited articles
Review articles
CME Programs
Powerpoint slides
Images
American Roentgen Ray Society Images of Tabes Dorsalis diagnostic study of choice All Images X-rays Echo & Ultrasound CT Images MRI
Ongoing Trials at Clinical Trials.gov
US National Guidelines Clearinghouse
NICE Guidance
FDA on Tabes Dorsalis diagnostic study of choice
CDC on Tabes Dorsalis diagnostic study of choice
Tabes Dorsalis diagnostic study of choice in the news
Blogs on Tabes Dorsalis diagnostic study of choice
Directions to Hospitals Treating Tabes Dorsalis
Risk calculators and risk factors for Tabes Dorsalis diagnostic study of choice

VisualWikitext

Revision as of 21:33, 28 February 2018

Editor-In-Chief: C. Michael Gibson, M.S., M.D. [1]; Associate Editor(s)-in-Chief:

Overview

Diagnostic Study of Choice

Template statements

Study of choice:

Fluorescent treponemal antibody absorbed (FTA-ABS) tests are the gold standard test for the diagnosis of tabes dorsalis.^[1]
The fluorescent treponemal antibody absorbed (FTA-ABS) test should be performed when:.
- A positive Venereal Disease Research Laboratory test (VDRL) or rapid plasma reagin (RPR) is detected in the patient.

The comparison table for diagnostic studies of choice for [disease name]

	Sensitivity	Specificity
FTA-ABS	84% for detecting primary syphilis infection and almost 100% sensitivity for detecting syphilis infection in other stages^[2]	96%^[2]
VDRL/RPR	78% to 86% for detecting primary syphilis infection, 100% for detecting secondary syphilis infection, and 95% to 98% for detecting latent syphilis infection^[2]	85% to 99%^[2]

References

↑ Lin LR, Fu ZG, Dan B, Jing GJ, Tong ML, Chen DT; et al. (2010). "Development of a colloidal gold-immunochromatography assay to detect immunoglobulin G antibodies to Treponema pallidum with TPN17 and TPN47". Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 68 (3): 193–200. doi:10.1016/j.diagmicrobio.2010.06.019. PMID 20846810.
↑ ^2.0 ^2.1 ^2.2 ^2.3 Calonge N, U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (2004). "Screening for syphilis infection: recommendation statement". Ann Fam Med. 2 (4): 362–5. PMC 1466700. PMID 15335137.

Template:WH Template:WS

[pmid20846810-1] Lin LR, Fu ZG, Dan B, Jing GJ, Tong ML, Chen DT; et al. (2010). "Development of a colloidal gold-immunochromatography assay to detect immunoglobulin G antibodies to Treponema pallidum with TPN17 and TPN47". Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 68 (3): 193–200. doi:10.1016/j.diagmicrobio.2010.06.019. PMID 20846810.

[pmid15335137-2] 2.0 ^2.1 ^2.2 ^2.3 Calonge N, U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (2004). "Screening for syphilis infection: recommendation statement". Ann Fam Med. 2 (4): 362–5. PMC 1466700. PMID 15335137.

[1]

[2]

@@ Line 21: / Line 21: @@
 |-
 ! style="background: #696969; color: #FFFFFF; text-align: center;" |FTA-ABS
-| style="background: #DCDCDC; padding: 5px; text-align: center;" |84% for detecting primary syphilis infection and almost 100% sensitivity for detecting syphilis infection in other stages
+| style="background: #DCDCDC; padding: 5px; text-align: center;" |84% for detecting primary syphilis infection and almost 100% sensitivity for detecting syphilis infection in other stages<ref name="pmid15335137" />
 | style="background: #DCDCDC; padding: 5px; text-align: center;" |96%<ref name="pmid15335137">{{cite journal| author=Calonge N, U.S. Preventive Services Task Force| title=Screening for syphilis infection: recommendation statement. | journal=Ann Fam Med | year= 2004 | volume= 2 | issue= 4 | pages= 362-5 | pmid=15335137 | doi= | pmc=1466700 | url=https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/eutils/elink.fcgi?dbfrom=pubmed&tool=sumsearch.org/cite&retmode=ref&cmd=prlinks&id=15335137  }} </ref>
 |-
 ! style="background: #696969; color: #FFFFFF; text-align: center;" |VDRL/RPR
-| style="background: #DCDCDC; padding: 5px; text-align: center;" |78% to 86% for detecting primary syphilis infection, 100% for detecting secondary syphilis infection, and 95% to 98% for detecting latent syphilis infection
+| style="background: #DCDCDC; padding: 5px; text-align: center;" |78% to 86% for detecting primary syphilis infection, 100% for detecting secondary syphilis infection, and 95% to 98% for detecting latent syphilis infection<ref name="pmid15335137" />
-| style="background: #DCDCDC; padding: 5px; text-align: center;" |85% to 99%
+| style="background: #DCDCDC; padding: 5px; text-align: center;" |85% to 99%<ref name="pmid15335137" />
 |}
-<small> ✔= The best test based on the feature </small>
-===== Diagnostic results =====
-The following result of [investigation name] is confirmatory of [disease name]:
-* Result 1
-* Result 2
-===== Sequence of Diagnostic Studies =====
-The [name of investigation] should be performed when:
-* The patient presented with symptoms/signs 1, 2, and 3 as the first step of diagnosis.
-* A positive [test] is detected in the patient, to confirm the diagnosis.
-=== Diagnostic Criteria ===
-* Here you should describe the details of the diagnostic criteria.
-*Always mention the name of the criteria/definition you are about to list (e.g. modified Duke criteria for the diagnosis of endocarditis / 3rd universal definition of MI) and cite the primary source of where this criteria/definition is found.
-*Although not necessary, it is recommended that you include the criteria in a table. Make sure you always cite the source of the content and whether the table has been adapted from another source.
-*Be very clear as to the number of criteria (or threshold) that needs to be met out of the total number of criteria.
-*Distinguish criteria based on their nature (e.g. clinical criteria / pathological criteria/ imaging criteria) before discussing them in details.
-*To view an example (endocarditis diagnostic criteria), click [[Endocarditis diagnosis|here]]
-*If relevant, add additional information that might help the reader distinguish various criteria or the evolution of criteria (e.g. original criteria vs. modified criteria).
-*You may also add information about the sensitivity and specificity of the criteria, the pre-test probability, and other figures that may help the reader understand how valuable the criteria are clinically.
-* [Disease name] is mainly diagnosed based on clinical presentation. There are no established criteria for the diagnosis of [disease name].
-* There is no single diagnostic study of choice for [disease name], though [disease name] may be diagnosed based on [name of criteria] established by [...].
-* The diagnosis of [disease name] is made when at least [number] of the following [number] diagnostic criteria are met: [criterion 1], [criterion 2], [criterion 3], and [criterion 4].
-* The diagnosis of [disease name] is based on the [criteria name] criteria, which includes [criterion 1], [criterion 2], and [criterion 3].
-* [Disease name] may be diagnosed at any time if one or more of the following criteria are met:
-** Criteria 1
-** Criteria 2
-** Criteria 3
-IF there are clear, established diagnostic criteria:
-*The diagnosis of [disease name] is made when at least [number] of the following [number] diagnostic criteria are met: [criterion 1], [criterion 2], [criterion 3], and [criterion 4].
-*The diagnosis of [disease name] is based on the [criteria name] criteria, which include [criterion 1], [criterion 2], and [criterion 3].
-*The diagnosis of [disease name] is based on the [definition name] definition, which includes [criterion 1], [criterion 2], and [criterion 3].
-IF there are no established diagnostic criteria:
-*There are no established criteria for the diagnosis of [disease name].

Tabes Dorsalis diagnostic study of choice: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 21:33, 28 February 2018

Overview

Diagnostic Study of Choice

Template statements

Study of choice:

The comparison table for diagnostic studies of choice for [disease name]

References

Navigation menu