This report updates CDC's 2002 recommendations regarding screening tests to detect Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhoeae infections (CDC. Screening tests to detect Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhoeae infections-2002. MMWR 2002;51[No. RR-15]) and provides new recommendations regarding optimal specimen types, the use of tests to detect rectal and oropharyngeal C. trachomatis and N. gonorrhoeae infections, and circumstances when supplemental testing is indicated. The recommendations in this report are intended for use by clinical laboratory directors, laboratory staff, clinicians, and disease control personnel who must choose among the multiple available tests, establish standard operating procedures for collecting and processing specimens, interpret test results for laboratory reporting, and counsel and treat patients. The performance of nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs) with respect to overall sensitivity, specificity, and ease of specimen transport is better than that of any of the other tests available for the diagnosis of chlamydial and gonococcal infections. Laboratories should use NAATs to detect chlamydia and gonorrhea except in cases of child sexual assault involving boys and rectal and oropharyngeal infections in prepubescent girls and when evaluating a potential gonorrhea treatment failure, in which case culture and susceptibility testing might be required. NAATs that have been cleared by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the detection of C. trachomatis and N. gonorrhoeae infections are recommended as screening or diagnostic tests because they have been evaluated in patients with and without symptoms. Maintaining the capability to culture for both N. gonorrhoeae and C. trachomatis in laboratories throughout the country is important because data are insufficient to recommend nonculture tests in cases of sexual assault in prepubescent boys and extragenital anatomic site exposure in prepubescent girls. N. gonorrhoeae culture is required to evaluate suspected cases of gonorrhea treatment failure and to monitor developing resistance to current treatment regimens. Chlamydia culture also should be maintained in some laboratories to monitor future changes in antibiotic susceptibility and to support surveillance and research activities such as detection of lymphogranuloma venereum or rare infections caused by variant or mutated C. trachomatis.
chlamydia trachomatis laboratory detection guidelines 2014, nucleic acid amplification test NAAT gonorrhea screening, CDC recommendations STI laboratory testing, neisseria gonorrhoeae culture antimicrobial susceptibility, chlamydia gonorrhea screening infertility workup, NAAT vs culture STI detection sensitivity specificity, sexually transmitted infection diagnostic testing guidelines, gonorrhea treatment failure culture testing, chlamydia screening reproductive age women, STI testing specimen types clinical laboratory
No Authors Listed et al. 2014, No Authors Listed 2014
Cite this article
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2014). Recommendations for the laboratory-based detection of Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhoeae--2014. MMWR. Recommendations and reports : Morbidity and mortality weekly report. Recommendations and reports, 63(RR-02), 1-19.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Recommendations for the laboratory-based detection of Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhoeae--2014. MMWR Recomm Rep. 2014;63(RR-02):1-19.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. "Recommendations for the laboratory-based detection of Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhoeae--2014." MMWR. Recommendations and reports : Morbidity and mortality weekly report. Recommendations and reports, vol. 63, no. RR-02, 2014, pp. 1-19.
Keywords
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S., Chlamydia Infections/diagnosis, Chlamydia Trachomatis/isolation & Purification, Clinical Laboratory Techniques/standards, Female, Gonorrhea/diagnosis, Guidelines As Topic, Humans, Male, Neisseria Gonorrhoeae/isolation & Purification, Nucleic Acid Amplification Techniques, United States
Related articles
Guidelines by Clinical Area · Gynecologic Guidelines
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, 2026·National Institute for Health and Care Excellence
Second draft guidance (consultation 15 September to 5 October 2026; expected publication 21 January 2027). Recommendation 1.1: Endotest (Ziwig, saliva 109-microRNA signature, CE IVDR class C, ages 18 to 43, GBP 1,381 per test) can be used in the NHS during a 4-year evidence generation period as an option to diagnose endometriosis in primary care, only when clinical examination is normal and ultrasound is negative, inconclusive, declined or not suitable. Recommendation 1.5: more research is needed on DotEndo (DotLab blood microRNA, GBP 400), Endomkit (Camlab/apDia serum BDNF plus CA-125, GBP 28 to 199) and EndoSure (gastrointestinal myoelectrical activity, GBP 350) before NHS funding. Committee noted all peer-reviewed accuracy evidence came from secondary or tertiary care where prevalence is higher than in primary care; the developmental Endotest cohort was judged at high risk of bias and the external validation studies at unclear risk; DotEndo, Endomkit and EndoSure had no external validation studies; no study reported clinical outcomes; the technologies cannot distinguish types of endometriosis or determine severity; clinical experts stated a negative result should not be a reason to deny referral if endometriosis is still suspected; imaging does not identify all types, particularly superficial peritoneal endometriosis. Average time to diagnosis in the UK cited as 9 years 4 months.
Restorative Care and Assisted Reproduction · Outcome Comparisons
Restorative Reproductive Medicine (RRM) aims to restore fertility by diagnosing and treating the underlying causes of infertility. RRM is frequently promoted as an alternative to assisted reproductive technology (ART), despite uncertainty regarding its comparative effectiveness and safety. Where delayed childbearing and infertility are becoming more common, reliance on optimization of natural physiology alone may delay effective treatment and compromise reproductive outcomes. A systematic review of the current evidence comparing RRM to either ART or unassisted conception is, therefore, essential to inform clinical practice, guideline development, and shared decision-making for patients experiencing infertility. To assess the effectiveness and safety of RRM approaches, evaluated as a whole, rather than as individual components, compared with ART and medically unassisted conception in couples experiencing infertility. A systematic literature search of MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL and the Journal of Restorative Reproductive Medicine from inception to 28 November 2025. We included randomized control trials (RCTs) or nonrandomized comparative studies evaluating reproductive and safety outcomes of RRM as a unified treatment, compared with either ART or expectant management (attempted medically unassisted conception). Two reviewers independently screened titles, abstracts and full texts with disagreements resolved by a third reviewer. We retrieved 724 records, of which 16 studies underwent full-text review. No RCTs or comparative observational studies were identified. All 16 full-text studies were excluded for an ineligible study design (no control group); most were cohort studies in which all participants underwent RRM. Ten studies reported reproductive outcomes; nine of these made claims regarding the benefits or effectiveness of RRM. None of these claims were supported by the study designs used, as the lack of a comparison group precludes reliable estimation of treatment effects. Consequently, these studies cannot provide valid estimates of RRM success rates, nor permit any meaningful inference about its effectiveness relative to unassisted conception or ART. Large-scale RCTs or prospective cohort studies reporting effectiveness and safety outcomes are required to inform evidence-based fertility guidelines. There are no comparative studies to support reliable estimates of the safety and effectiveness of RRM compared with ART or medically unassisted conception for couples experiencing infertility.
This systematic review and meta-analysis examined the relationship between menstrual cycle phases and the incidence of muscle injuries in female team sport athletes, following PRISMA 2020 and PERSiST guidelines. A comprehensive search was conducted in PubMed, Scopus, and SPORTDiscus from inception to mid-January 2024. Studies were included if they examined female team sport athletes of reproductive age with regular menstrual cycles and compared the occurrence of muscle injuries across at least two menstrual phases. Studies involving hormonal contraceptive use, medications affecting the menstrual cycle or musculoskeletal system, or menstrual dysfunction were excluded. Three studies met the inclusion criteria, involving 318 participants. Meta-analysis yielded a pooled Risk Ratio of 1.18 (95% CI: 0.75 to 1.86, p = 0.46) for injury risk between the luteal and follicular phases, suggesting no statistically significant association. However, the certainty of the cumulative evidence was rated as very low due to methodological limitations, including inconsistent phase classifications and reliance on imprecise methods for identifying menstrual phases. Consequently, no practical or clinical recommendations can be made at this time. Future research employing standardised, physiologically accurate methods for classifying and detecting menstrual cycle phases is necessary to better understand the potential links between hormonal fluctuations and injury risk. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1038/s41598-026-36763-0.
Metabolic and Endocrine Agents · GLP-1 Receptor Agonists
Song E et al., 2026·Frontiers in nutrition·
Open Access
GLP-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs) address key metabolic drivers of Polycystic Ovary Syndrome (PCOS), yet their integration into fertility management remains challenging because reproductive efficacy is variably reported, preconception washout is required, and standardized clinical pathways are lacking. We present a structured, fertility-centered, hypothesis-generating narrative synthesis of the metabolic-reproductive-pregnancy continuum in PCOS, integrating evidence from randomized trials, observational studies, reviews, and clinical guidance. Heterogeneous findings are organized by intervention/comparator, follow-up window, and key effect modifiers, including baseline obesity/insulin-resistance phenotype, concomitant metformin, and lifestyle co-interventions. The clinical framework is derived from this narrative synthesis rather than from quantitative reproductive meta-analysis. As a methodological proof-of-concept only, we additionally performed a Bayesian network meta-analysis restricted to body-weight change within a prespecified 12-16-weeks window in the largest connected treatment network. Because ovulation, clinical pregnancy, time to pregnancy, and live birth were inconsistently defined and sparsely reported across trials, no confirmatory quantitative synthesis or treatment ranking was undertaken for these reproductive outcomes. We therefore distinguish evidence domains explicitly, with relatively robust support for short-term metabolic benefit but substantially greater uncertainty for reproductive translation and periconception safety. The narrative evidence supports positioning GLP-1RAs as time-limited, preconception metabolic-optimization tools, not as confirmed fertility-enhancing therapies per se. Their use in PCOS fertility care should be individualized through shared decision-making, with explicit discussion of the difference between established metabolic benefit and hypothesis-generating reproductive benefit, together with drug-specific washout planning and strategies to minimize post-discontinuation rebound. Future trials should standardize reproductive endpoints and systematically capture periconception exposure to enable confirmatory synthesis and individualized benefit-risk estimation.