Evidence Hub

Comparative Study of the Clinical Characteristics of Patients With Sexually Transmitted Infections Diagnosed by Nucleic Acid Amplification Tests

Son JS, Kim N, Oh HS, Park SW, Shin DH

Journal of Korean medical science, 2025

221 participants · 1 citation

Abstract

Background: Sexually transmitted infections (STIs) caused by Chlamydia trachomatis (CT), Mycoplasma genitalium (MG), and Neisseria gonorrhoeae (NG) are major public health concerns. While nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs) are the primary diagnostic tool for these pathogens, research on pathogen-specific characteristics and risk factors for NAAT clearance failure remain limited in Korea. This study analyzed clinical features of STIs and post-treatment NAAT changes.

Methods: This retrospective cohort study included adult, non-pregnant patients diagnosed with CT, MG, or NG via NAAT at a secondary care hospital between 2012 and 2024. Clinical characteristics were compared using the Kruskal-Wallis test, and multivariate logistic regression identified risk factors for NAAT clearance failure in patients with follow-up NAAT within three months.

Results: Among 500 STI cases, 80.8% were female, with a median age of 27.0 years. CT was the most common pathogen (53.8%), followed by MG (37.2%) and NG (9.0%). CT infections had the highest complication rate (28.6%), while NG infections were more frequently symptomatic (77.8%) and associated with pyuria (46.4%). Of 221 patients with follow-up NAAT, 14.9% failed clearance. MG infection (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 6.100; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.711-13.725; P P = 0.029) were independent risk factors for clearance failure.

Conclusion: CT showed the highest complication rate and NG was the most symptomatic. MG was a key predictor…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 221 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free