A medical Journal of Australia has unexpectedly uncovered about a certain gonorrhoea test that has been constantly used which has been resulting to an incorrect positive results
Dr Eric Chow who has lead a team of researchers from the Melbourne Sexual Health Centre , Monash University, Royal Women’s Hospital Melbourne and University of Melbourne , has discovered that the common cases among Victorian women that resulted positive for gonorrhea that was confirmed by culture did not change over time. The test being made were by the nucleic acid amplification and the cases had tripled between 2008 and 2013 .
“There was no observable increase in the proportion of women diagnosed with gonorrhea by culture at the MSHC, or in the proportion of notifications per reported (Medicare Benefits Schedule) item numbers for dual NAAT in Victoria”, the team of researchers had noted .
“Taken collectively, these data suggest that the prevalence of gonorrhea among women remains very low and stable in Victoria (0.2%-0.3%) and at the MSHC (0.4%-0.6%), and that the rise in notifications is likely due to false-positive results arising from the increased use of NAATs in a low prevalence population, with potential for unnecessary treatment of patients and partners and consequent harm”
Another Medical Journal of Autralia editorial was considered by Dr Katy Bell and co-authors finding out that gonorrhea had become commonly increasing.
“Two factors which may partly account for the increase in testing are … clinicians misinterpreting guidelines as meaning that opportunistic screening should be done for both infections, and … use of dual NAATs by laboratories to test for both infections, even when clinicians have only requested chlamydia testing,” Dr Bell wrote.
“The psychological consequences of false-positive test results are substantial.
“They include anxiety and depression, feelings of guilt and self-blame loss of self-esteem and self-confidence, feelings of social isolation, and existential concerns.”
A recommendation that was given by the research team and also from the editorial that limithing the routine screening to higher-risk population with higher underlying rates of infecion was considered a way to deal with the situation.