Evaluation of Automated Processing of Electronically Reported Serological Tests for Syphilis Using Current and Historical Syphilis Results Compared With Traditional Reactor Grid Processing in Florida.

Background: Syphilis in Florida increased 49% from 2016 to 2020. Moreover, many serological tests for syphilis (STS) do not indicate current infection. Traditionally, syphilis surveillance systems used reactor grids, a method for prioritizing STS for investigation based on age, nontreponemal titer, and/or sex. In 2022, Florida's sexually transmitted disease surveillance system implemented an automated method for processing electronically reported STS (eSTS), expanding upon the reactor grid, using an individual's current STS (treponemal and nontreponemal), treatment history, and historical STS results aiming for more efficiently processing eSTS. We compared the new method of processing eSTS results against the reactor grid and determined potential value in time/cost savings of this change.
Methods: All eSTSs (n = 4144) from January 2, 2023 to January 8, 2023, were compared by how the logic-based method processed test results versus how the reactor grid processed test results. Each method was compared using measurements of accuracy (e.g., sensitivity/specificity). Time and cost savings in eSTS processing were estimated.
Results: Using the surveillance case definition as reference, the accuracy of the logic-based method for processing eSTS was nearly double (82.3% vs. 43.6%), had greater specificity (79.0% vs. 33.0%), and increased positive predictive value (47.5% vs. 22.0%) when compared with the reactor grid method. Sensitivity (99.5% vs. 98.6%) and negative predictive value (99.9% vs. 99.2%) remained similar. The logic-based method is estimated to save 7783 hours annually (~$185,000).
Conclusions: Processing eSTS based on current and historical STS results is significantly more accurate than using a reactor grid. Moreover, these improvements save time and resources that can be better allocated to other program prevention activities.
Competing Interests: Conflict of Interest and Sources of Funding: The authors report no known conflicts of interest. The authors report no dedicated funding for this project but are employees of state and federal government agencies.
(Copyright © 2024 American Sexually Transmitted Diseases Association. All rights reserved.)