Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 503

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 71 of the 71 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Current methods of laboratory diagnosis of Chlamydia trachomatis infections

Open access
Black, C M·1997·Clinical Microbiology Reviews

Abstract

Infections caused by Chlamydia trachomatis are probably the most common sexually transmitted diseases in the United States. Commonly unrecognized and often inadequately treated, chlamydial infections can ascend the reproductive tract and cause pelvic inflammatory disease, which often results in the devastating consequences of infertility, ectopic pregnancy, or chronic pelvic pain. C. trachomatis infections are also known to increase the risk for human immunodeficiency virus infection. The obligate intracellular life cycle of C. trachomatis has traditionally required laboratory diagnostic tests that are technically demanding, labor-intensive, expensive, and difficult to access. In spite of these historical challenges, however, laboratory diagnosis of C. trachomatis has been a rapidly advancing area in which there is presently a wide array of commercial diagnostic technologies, costs, manufacturers. This review describes and compares the diagnostic methods for C. trachomatis infection that are currently approved for use in the United States, including the newest DNA amplification technologies which are yet to be licensed for commercial use. Issues to consider in selecting a test for purposes of screening versus diagnosis based on prevalence, performance, legal, social, and cost issues are also discussed.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1128/cmr.10.1.160

Cites

71 of 71 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 71 references

Cited by

See all 503

Metadata

Authors
Black, C. M.
Venue
Clinical Microbiology Reviews
Published
1997-01
Volume
10
Issue
1
Pages
160-184
ISSN
  • 0893-8512 (ISSN-L)
  • 1098-6618
OpenAlex
W2142277969
Cited by
503
References
71
FWCI
21.35
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Current methods of laboratory diagnosis of Chlamydia trachomatis infections. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1128/cmr.10.1.160
The paper
Black, C. M. (1997). Current methods of laboratory diagnosis of Chlamydia trachomatis infections. Clinical Microbiology Reviews. https://doi.org/10.1128/cmr.10.1.160

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.