1. Evaluation of enzyme immunoassay (Chlamydiazyme) for detecting Chlamydia trachomatis in genital tract specimens;Taylor-Robinson, D.; Thomas, B.J.; Osborn, M.F.,1987
2. Comparison of detection words increased sensitivity could not be attributed to procedures for Chlamydia trachomatis, including enzyme testing a greater proportion of specimens containing a immunoassays, in a mouse model of genital infection;Taylor-Robinson, D.; Tuffrey, M.,1987
3. Enzyme immunoassay for detecting genital tract Chlamydia trachomatis;Taylor-Robinson, D.; Thomas, B.J.;J Clin Pathol,1988
4. The possibility of accomplishing a comparable increase in sensitivity without loss of specificity with Chlamydiazyme is debatable because this assay is based on a polyclonal antibody which reacts with an Sensitivity of detecting Chlamydia trachomatis elementary bodies in smears by use of a fluorescein-labelled monoclonal antibody: comparison with conventional isolation;Thomas, B.J.; Evans, R.T.; Hawkins, D.A.; Taylor-Robinson, D.;J Clin Pathol,1984
5. Evaluation ofan even greater variety of micro-organisms.2 Furthermore, our previous tests on specimens from women2 have indicated a lower specificity with Chlamydiazyme than with IDEIA. We do not forsee enzyme immunoassay for the diagnosis ofchlamydial infections in urogenital specimens;Tjiam, K.H.; van Heijst, B.Y.M.; van Zuuren, A.;J Clin Microbiol,1986