TableĀ 3

Microscopy studies (n=2)

First author, year, referenceCountryStudy populationSymptomatic (%)SexSample size (n)POC testGold standardGonorrhoea prevalence (%)Specimen typeSensitivity %
(95% CI)
Specificity %
(95% CI)
PPV %
(95% CI)
NPV %
(95% CI)
Manavi, 200328ScotlandClinical audit GUMNot specifiedM and F596 (Cervical women: 57
MSM Urethral: 146
MSM rectal: 13
Heterosexual men urethral: 172)
MicroscopyCulture
Modified New York City culture
100VariousCervical slides women: 51
(38 to 63)*
MSM Urethral: 89
(82 to 93)*
MSM rectal: 54
(29 to 77)*
Urethral heterosexual men: 84
(77 to 89)*
N/A (Audit of positive cases)N/A (Audit of positive cases)N/A (Audit of positive cases)
Forbes, 200727EnglandClinical audit GUMSymptomatic:27%
Contacts: 31%
F90MicroscopyCulture
Type not specified
100Not specified38
(28 to 48)*
N/A (Audit of positive cases)N/A (Audit of positive cases)N/A (Audit of positive cases)
  • *Calculated by author.

  • GUM, genitourinary medicine; MSM, men who have sex with men; NPV, negative predictive value; POC, point-of-care; PPV, positive predictive value.