Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 781

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Laboratory diagnosis and interpretation of tests for syphilis

Open access
Larsen, S A, Steiner, B M, Rudolph, A H·1995·Clinical Microbiology Reviews

Abstract

The lack of a method for demonstrating the presence of Treponema pallidum by growth necessitates the use of alternative methods. Traditionally, these methods are divided into direct detection methods (animal inoculation, dark-field microscopy, etc.) and serologic tests for the presence of patient antibody against T. pallidum. Serologic methods are further divided into two classes. One class, the nontreponemal tests, detects antibodies to lipoidal antigens present in either the host or T. pallidum; examples are the Venereal Disease Research Laboratory and rapid plasma reagin and tests. Reactivity in these tests generally indicates host tissue damage that may not be specific for syphilis. Because these tests are easy and inexpensive to perform, they are commonly used for screening, and with proper clinical signs they are suggestive of syphilis. The other class of test, the treponemal tests, uses specific treponemal antigens. Confirmation of infection requires a reactive treponemal test. Examples of the treponemal tests are the microhemagglutination assay for antibodies to T. pallidum and the fluorescent treponemal antibody absorption test. These tests are more expensive and complicated to perform than the nontreponemal tests. On the horizon are a number of direct antigen, enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay, and PCR techniques. Several of these techniques have shown promise in clinical trials for the diagnosis of congenital syphilis and neurosyphilis that are presently difficult to diagnose.

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.8.1.1

Cites

3 of 3 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 3 references

Cited by

See all 781

Metadata

Authors
Larsen, S. A., Steiner, B. M., & Rudolph, A. H.
Venue
Clinical Microbiology Reviews
Published
1995-01
Volume
8
Issue
1
Pages
1-21
ISSN
  • 0893-8512 (ISSN-L)
  • 1098-6618
OpenAlex
W2097565414
Cited by
781
References
3
FWCI
5.28
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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: Laboratory diagnosis and interpretation of tests for syphilis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1128/cmr.8.1.1
The paper
Larsen, S. A., Steiner, B. M., & Rudolph, A. H. (1995). Laboratory diagnosis and interpretation of tests for syphilis. Clinical Microbiology Reviews. https://doi.org/10.1128/cmr.8.1.1

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.