Research reportLocal testing-record sample review · Single-center retrospective study
Auspicious Laboratory, Inc.
West Houston STD Research Report 2025–2026
Four questions matter most: What is detected most often? Does detection always require treatment? When can testing be too early? Is age associated with detection patterns?
valid results detected Ureaplasma urealyticum (UU), the most frequent detection
A frequent detection does not mean everyone needs treatment.valid results detected Gardnerella vaginalis (GV), the second most frequent detection
Detection alone does not diagnose bacterial vaginosis.four-STI detection under age 35 vs 35 or older: a clear age-group difference in this sample
Repeat tests included. An association, not proof that age causes infection.What are the key findings?
Each statement stands on its own and keeps its denominator. Setting: Auspicious Laboratory’s Houston Westchase testing location; records from January 2025 to a September 27, 2026 data snapshot; repeat-test handling is stated where it applies. Detection rates describe a testing sample, not community prevalence.
- At Auspicious Laboratory’s Houston Westchase testing location, between January 2025 and a September 27, 2026 data snapshot (repeat tests included), Ureaplasma urealyticum (UU) was detected in 139 of 377 valid results (36.9%) and Gardnerella vaginalis (GV) in 127 of 392 (32.4%)—the two most frequent detections—followed by Mycoplasma hominis in 31 of 388 (8.0%); these are detection rates in a testing sample, not community prevalence.[L]
- At Auspicious Laboratory’s Houston Westchase testing location (January 2025–September 27, 2026, repeat tests included), 176 of 373 records with valid results for both UU and GV detected at least one of the two (47.2%); the two percentages use different denominators and overlap, so they cannot simply be added.[L]
- At Auspicious Laboratory’s Houston Westchase testing location (January 2025–September 27, 2026, repeat tests included), a detection was a laboratory finding, not a treatment decision: UU (139 of 377 valid results) can be present without causing disease, and GV detection (127 of 392) alone does not establish bacterial vaginosis, so symptoms, specimen site, clinical findings and other tests determine whether treatment is appropriate.[L][7][8][22]
- At Auspicious Laboratory’s Houston Westchase testing location, the 465 included orders (January 2025–September 27, 2026) did not capture exposure dates, so the review cannot estimate how many repeat visits were caused by testing too early; for HIV, CDC lists usual detection windows of about 18–45 days for a laboratory antigen/antibody test using venous blood and 18–90 days for a rapid antigen/antibody finger-stick test, and a possible exposure within 72 hours calls for prompt clinical assessment for PEP—CDC guidance, not a study finding or a laboratory service.[L][12][16]
- At Auspicious Laboratory’s Houston Westchase testing location (January 2025–September 27, 2026, repeat tests included), among 385 complete four-target panels with known age, the combined four-STI measure (chlamydia, gonorrhea, T. vaginalis, M. genitalium) was 15.8% (38 of 241) under age 35 versus 4.2% (6 of 144) at 35 or older (Pearson χ² ≈ 12.0, p < 0.001); this exploratory, unadjusted association is not proof that age causes infection and is not an individual risk multiplier.[L]
- At Auspicious Laboratory’s Houston Westchase testing location (January 2025–September 27, 2026), 25 of 318 first records negative for both chlamydia and gonorrhea detected Trichomonas vaginalis or Mycoplasma genitalium (7.9%); this secondary finding shows that different tests answer different questions—it is not a false-negative rate or evidence that another provider missed a diagnosis.[L]
What is this report—and what is it not?
This report is
- A single-center retrospective review of 465 STI- or HIV-related orders from one Houston Westchase testing location, January 2025 to a September 27, 2026 data snapshot.
- A look at four research questions: what is detected most often; when a detection does or does not call for treatment; how window periods affect test timing and retesting; and whether age is associated with detection patterns.
- Aggregate counts only, reported with their numerators and denominators; descriptive 95% Wilson intervals are given for the target and age tables (Tables 1–2).
- Health information—not a diagnosis, a treatment recommendation or a prescription.
This report is not
- An estimate of community prevalence in West Houston: detection rates come from a self-selected, non-random testing sample, and residence was not verified.
- A treatment rule: a detected organism is not automatically a diagnosis or a reason for antibiotics.
- Proof that age causes infection, or an individual risk multiplier: age figures include repeat tests, and the chi-square result is an exploratory, unadjusted association.
- A false-negative rate, or evidence that another provider missed a diagnosis (25/318).
- A claim of zero HIV infections: HIV records await reconciliation with final interpretations.
- A PEP service: the 72-hour PEP timing is existing CDC guidance, not a laboratory service.
- Journal peer-reviewed or endorsed by any public agency; every scenario is an illustration, not a real case.
Executive summary
What does this report ask, and what did it find?
In this laboratory sample, Ureaplasma urealyticum (UU) was the most frequently detected organism at 36.9%, followed by Gardnerella vaginalis (GV) at 32.4%. Those findings raise more useful questions than whether two negative lines can miss a different organism: Why are UU and GV so common in tested records? When does a detection matter clinically? When is treatment appropriate—and when is a positive result alone not enough? Test timing and age patterns also change how a report should be interpreted.[L][7][8]
The value of this review is not the obvious point that “two tests do not cover every organism.” It is the four more useful questions raised by the local data. First, what was detected most often? UU was detected in 36.9% of valid records and GV in 32.4%, far more often than most other individual targets. Second, does a detection mean treatment is needed? Not automatically: UU may be present without disease, and GV detection alone does not establish bacterial vaginosis. Symptoms, specimen site, clinical findings and other tests determine whether treatment is appropriate. Third, was testing done at the right time? Detection windows differ by infection and test type, so recent exposures may require later retesting; possible HIV exposures within 72 hours call for prompt PEP assessment rather than waiting for a later test. Fourth, is age associated with detection? In this sample, the combined four-STI measure was 15.8% under age 35 versus 4.2% at age 35 or older. The association is real in these records but cannot be interpreted as age itself causing infection because repeat tests and other factors were not adjusted.[L][7][8][12][16]
The records come from one self-selected testing location, January 2025 to a September 27, 2026 data snapshot, so the percentages describe tested records, not community prevalence. The 72-hour PEP timing is CDC guidance; the laboratory does not provide PEP.
Definitions
What do “detection”, “window period” and “exploratory association” mean?
- Detection
- A laboratory finding that a molecular test reported a target organism as detected. “Detected” is not automatically the same as “a disease that requires treatment”: symptoms, specimen site, clinical findings and other tests matter.[7][8]
- Valid result
- An interpretable detected/not-detected code for a target in the data extract. It is not an independent validation of assay performance. Each target’s denominator counts only valid results for that target, so denominators differ from row to row.[L]
- Window period
- The time between exposure and the point when a specific test can reliably detect an infection. It differs by organism, test method and specimen site; a test performed too early may only mean “not detected at this time.”[12]
- Repeat tests included
- Counts panels rather than people, so one person tested more than once can contribute more than one panel. The individual-target and age tables include repeats; the 334 first-record subset in section 05 does not.[L]
- First record
- The order flagged upstream as a person’s first order retained in the study database—not necessarily a person’s first-ever test. Section 05 uses 334 first records with complete results for chlamydia, gonorrhea, Trichomonas vaginalis and Mycoplasma genitalium.[L]
- Wilson interval (95%)
- A Wilson score confidence interval for a proportion—the range of values reasonably consistent with the observed count under a binomial model. It quantifies model-based uncertainty but does not remove selection bias; panel-level and age intervals are descriptive and are not adjusted for repeat testing of the same patient.[15]
- Exploratory association (Pearson chi-square)
- A test of whether two grouped measures—here age group and the combined four-STI detection measure—vary together in the sample more than chance alone would suggest. With repeat tests included and no adjustment for sex, symptoms, referral source, sexual exposures or specimen site, it does not show that age causes infection or predict an individual’s risk.[L]
01 · Most frequent detections
What was detected most often, and why do UU and GV matter?
The first question most readers will ask is not whether one negative test covers a different organism. It is: what did this testing sample actually detect most often?
Using the valid denominator for each target, Ureaplasma urealyticum (UU) was detected in 139/377 records (36.9%), Gardnerella vaginalis (GV) in 127/392 (32.4%), and Mycoplasma hominis (MH) in 31/388 (8.0%). The full target-by-target table appears in the next section.[L]
Among 373 records with valid results for both UU and GV, 176 detected at least one (47.2%); the two percentages use different denominators and overlap, so they cannot simply be added.[L]
That pattern is interesting for two reasons. First, the organisms most frequently detected in this laboratory sample were not the familiar headline infections chlamydia and gonorrhea. Second, the high frequency of UU and GV immediately raises a more important clinical question: does a frequent detection mean disease, and does it mean treatment? The answer is not automatically yes.
02 · Detection vs. treatment
When does a detected organism actually need treatment?
This is the second major question in the report: “Detected” is a laboratory finding; it is not automatically the same as “a disease that requires treatment.” The clinical meaning differs by organism.
| Test target | Detected / valid | Detection | 95% descriptive CI |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ureaplasma urealyticum (UU) | 139/377 | 36.9% | 32.2–41.8% |
| Gardnerella vaginalis (GV) | 127/392 | 32.4% | 28.0–37.2% |
| Mycoplasma hominis (MH) | 31/388 | 8.0% | 5.7–11.1% |
| Mycoplasma genitalium (MG) | 17/388 | 4.4% | 2.8–6.9% |
| Herpes simplex virus 2 (HSV-2) | 16/403 | 4.0% | 2.5–6.4% |
| Neisseria gonorrhoeae (NG) | 11/399 | 2.8% | 1.5–4.9% |
| Herpes simplex virus 1 (HSV-1) | 11/402 | 2.7% | 1.5–4.8% |
| Trichomonas vaginalis (TV) | 10/391 | 2.6% | 1.4–4.6% |
| Chlamydia trachomatis (CT) | 9/402 | 2.2% | 1.2–4.2% |
| Treponema pallidum PCR (TP) | 0/388 | 0.0% | 0.0–1.0% |
| Haemophilus ducreyi (historical) | 0/170 | 0.0% | 0.0–2.2% |
| HIV antigen/antibody records | 80 records | Not estimated | Final interpretations pending validation |
Zero syphilis PCR detections in 388 valid coded results do not rule out syphilis clinically; appropriate serologic testing has a separate role. No HIV “zero infection” claim is made, because the 80 HIV records still require reconciliation with final clinical interpretations.[L][11][12]
UU: frequent detection does not mean everyone needs antibiotics
Ureaplasma urealyticum (UU) can be present without causing disease. Higher organism load may have clinical relevance in some cases of male urethritis, but a positive UU result by itself does not decide treatment. Symptoms, evidence of urethritis and evaluation for other causes matter.[7][22]
GV: detection is not the same as a bacterial vaginosis diagnosis
Gardnerella vaginalis (GV) is associated with bacterial vaginosis (BV), but one positive molecular result does not by itself establish BV or determine a prescription. Symptoms, examination findings, specimen context and accepted diagnostic criteria matter.[8][21]
That is why the high UU and GV detection rates are worth studying: they expose a common gap between laboratory language and clinical meaning. Our guides explain what a Ureaplasma or Mycoplasma hominis result can and cannot mean and why a Gardnerella result is not the same as a BV diagnosis.
03 · Window periods
Window periods: why can testing too early lead to retesting?
Many people test soon after a possible exposure and then return later for another test. The key concept is the window period: the time between exposure and the point when a specific test can reliably detect an infection. The window differs by organism, test method and specimen site.
That means a negative result should be interpreted together with when the exposure occurred, when the test was taken and what type of test was used. A test performed too early may only mean “not detected at this time,” not that the recent exposure has been definitively ruled out.
A clear example: HIV
CDC lists a usual detection window of about 18–45 days for a laboratory antigen/antibody test using venous blood and 18–90 days for a rapid antigen/antibody finger-stick test. More importantly, a possible HIV exposure within 72 hours calls for prompt clinical assessment for PEP rather than waiting until a test becomes positive. This is CDC guidance, not a finding of this study, and the laboratory does not provide PEP.[12][16]
This dataset did not capture each patient’s exposure date, so it cannot estimate how many repeat visits were caused by window-period testing. But the service implication is clear: a report should not present “negative” without helping a recently exposed patient understand whether the timing is already informative and whether retesting or urgent care is needed.
See also our window-period guide and what to do after a possible HIV exposure.
04 · Age
Is age associated with pathogen detection in this sample?
Among 385 panels with known age and complete four-target results, the combined four-STI measure was 38/241 (15.8%) under age 35 and 6/144 (4.2%) at age 35 or older. An exploratory comparison of these grouped counts gives Pearson χ² ≈ 12.0, p < 0.001. In other words, age group and the combined four-STI detection measure were statistically associated in this testing sample.[L]
| Age group | Detected / complete panels | Detection | 95% descriptive CI |
|---|---|---|---|
| Under 25 | 12/69 | 17.4% | 10.2%–28.0% |
| 25–34 | 26/172 | 15.1% | 10.5%–21.2% |
| 35 or older | 6/144 | 4.2% | 1.9%–8.8% |
Statistical association is not the same as saying age itself causes infection. The age table includes repeat tests and does not adjust simultaneously for sex, symptoms, referral source, sexual exposures or specimen site.
The organism-specific patterns also differ. Gonorrhea was detected in 6/72 records under age 25 (8.3%); among ages 25–34, M. genitalium was 11/172 (6.4%) and T. vaginalis 7/173 (4.0%). HSV-2 did not show the same age decline as the combined four-organism measure.[L]
05 · Other findings
What else did the review find, and why is the 7.9% result secondary rather than the headline?
Among 334 first records with complete results for four targets, 318 were negative for both Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhoeae; 25 of those detected Trichomonas vaginalis or Mycoplasma genitalium (7.9%).[L]
This is useful but limited. It shows that different tests answer different questions. It is not a false-negative rate: it does not mean chlamydia or gonorrhea testing “missed 7.9%,” and it does not show that another provider made an error. For patients who usually choose a full STD panel, it is a routine combination finding rather than the main scientific message of the report.
Its proper role is a secondary reminder: if someone had only limited testing, untested organisms are not automatically negative; if someone had a full panel, the full panel—not two selected lines—should be interpreted. For how these two organisms are tested, see trichomoniasis and Mycoplasma genitalium testing.
Public-health data provide context, not a larger local denominator
Historical Harris County data show a substantial burden of chlamydia, gonorrhea and syphilis, with younger age groups representing a large share of reported chlamydia and gonorrhea cases. That context supports screening education, but county surveillance cannot be merged with this laboratory sample or used to claim that the sample represents West Houston residents.[1][17] For a broader reading of public surveillance figures, see what STD statistics for Houston and Texas can and cannot tell you.
06 · Education scenarios
How can the findings become four explanations patients can use?
The strongest public-facing lessons are not “test more.” They are: how to interpret frequent detections, where treatment decisions begin, how window periods affect retesting, and how to understand age differences without turning them into fear. The scenarios below translate those findings into plain-language actions; they are educational examples, not observed patient cases.
A | Two negative tests, continuing pain: keep the evaluation moving
Illustrative situation: An adult still has painful urination but sees negative chlamydia and gonorrhea results and decides to do nothing.
What could go wrong: Another infection or a noninfectious cause may remain unexplained; changing antibiotics without assessment may not address it.
What to do: Add a plain-language instruction: “Chlamydia and gonorrhea were not detected. If painful urination or unusual discharge continues, take this report to a clinician.” Record symptoms and prior medication; let a clinician decide whether MG, TV or another cause needs evaluation.
Goal: A person with persistent symptoms knows where to obtain further assessment. Track referral information given, known visits completed and unknown follow-up separately.[6][7]
B | No symptoms, no screening: explain who should still ask
Illustrative situation: A sexually active 21-year-old woman assumes that no pain or discharge means there is no reason to discuss testing.
What could go wrong: Asymptomatic chlamydia may go undetected; some untreated infections can lead to pelvic inflammatory disease.
What to do: Place clear information in pre-visit and youth-facing materials: annual chlamydia and gonorrhea screening is recommended for sexually active women under 25. Others should discuss individual risk, anatomy and exposure sites. Offer confidential, nonjudgmental information.
Goal: Eligible people understand when to discuss and obtain recommended screening without waiting for symptoms—not buy the same large panel because they are young.[9][17]
C | An organism name triggers self-medication: explain what treatment depends on
Illustrative situation: A reader sees GV, UU or MH “detected” and assumes an STI requiring antibiotics has been diagnosed.
What could go wrong: Medication based only on a name may be unnecessary or leave the actual cause of symptoms unaddressed. Symptoms should not be dismissed either.
What to do: Add: “An organism was detected. Whether treatment is needed depends on symptoms, the sampling site and clinical assessment. Do not buy medication based only on this name.” Explain that GV detection alone does not establish bacterial vaginosis.
Goal: People can distinguish a detection from a treatment decision. Whether this reduces self-medication requires follow-up measurement.[7][8]
D | A possible HIV exposure just occurred: do not wait past the PEP window
Illustrative situation: The day after a condom breaks, someone plans to wait until a test could detect HIV before asking what to do.
What could go wrong: For an exposure that warrants HIV post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP), waiting may miss the treatment-start window.
What to do: Seek immediate assessment by a health care provider, emergency department or urgent care service if a possible HIV exposure occurred within the past 72 hours. Earlier is better; a clinician decides whether PEP is indicated. Do not wait for a test window or lab report. A routine urine panel also does not replace HIV or appropriate syphilis testing. More: what to do after a possible HIV exposure.
Goal: Direct time-sensitive exposures to medical assessment rather than only to a testing appointment. This is existing CDC guidance, not a local study finding or a proven laboratory outcome, and it does not describe a laboratory service.[16][11][12]
E | Medication finished, follow-up unclear: explain partner care and retesting
Illustrative situation: A person completes treatment for diagnosed chlamydia but has no clear plan for partner evaluation or retesting.
What could go wrong: Sex with an untreated partner can lead to reinfection; sending a positive result alone does not resolve that issue.
What to do: The treating clinician should explain partner evaluation, precautions during treatment and the retest date. Chlamydia and gonorrhea generally call for retesting about three months after treatment; other organisms need their own guidance (see when to retest after STD treatment). A laboratory can support reminders and referrals without replacing clinical treatment.
Goal: Results needing care have a known recipient and an actionable plan. Record unsuccessful notification and missing follow-up rather than assume treatment occurred.[17][18][19]
F | A report arrives but the next step is unclear: verify understanding, not just delivery
Illustrative situation: A phone displays “Detected” or an unfamiliar abbreviation; the reader cannot tell whether to contact a clinician or wait.
What could go wrong: A needed action may be postponed; using a relative to interpret may also disclose information the patient intended to keep private. These are communication risks to prevent, not measured study outcomes.
What to do: Ask the preferred language and an agreed contact method. Explain the result and referral in plain language, then ask: “Can you tell me what you plan to do next?” Do not assume a family member should replace professional language support.
Goal: Separate a message being sent, understood and followed by a visit. The goal is an informed next step, not a delivery receipt.[4][5]
07 · Next steps
What should this study examine next?
The next phase should move beyond simple positivity counts. The most useful questions are whether UU/GV detection differs between symptomatic and asymptomatic patients; which detections actually lead to treatment; how long after exposure patients test and when they return; and whether pathogen patterns remain different by age after deduplication and adjustment for sex, symptoms, specimen site and exposure factors.
If the laboratory later evaluates whether education helped, the meaningful outcomes are understanding, appropriate referral and completed follow-up—not simply page views or reports sent.
| Problem to prevent | Proposed goal | What a quarterly report should check |
|---|---|---|
| Symptoms are ignored after a negative result | People reporting persistent symptoms receive specific follow-up information | Among those with documented persistent symptoms: referral advice given, known visits completed, and unknown outcomes |
| “Detected” is sent without a usable explanation | People can explain what was tested and who handles the next step | Consent-based understanding checks, with response rate and correct answers; do not count nonresponse as understanding |
| Eligible people wait for symptoms before discussing screening | Younger patients understand screening recommendations that apply to them | Count eligibility, information provided and recommended testing completed separately |
| A positive report has no documented follow-up | Treatment evaluation, partner information and indicated retesting have a plan | Known care and retesting among eligible patients; no “post-treatment retesting rate” without treatment dates |
| A recent possible HIV exposure is routed only to a test appointment | Potentially time-sensitive exposures are directed to immediate PEP assessment | Where lawful and necessary, check whether immediate-care advice was given; do not claim the laboratory provides PEP |
Methods
How was the study done, and what are its scope and limitations?
The sample comes from commercial testing records at Auspicious Laboratory, Inc. The extraction snapshot ends September 27, 2026; 465 STI- or HIV-related orders from January 2025 onward were included. This is a single-center, retrospective, non-random sample. Denominators differ because not every record contains the same test targets, and some analyses include repeat testing.[L]
The report can describe patterns in this laboratory sample. It cannot estimate community prevalence, determine that another provider missed a diagnosis, or reconstruct complete clinical histories. Symptoms, reasons for testing, exact specimen sites, treatment and outcomes were not available for every record.
Statistics: proportions are reported with their numerators and denominators and descriptive 95% Wilson intervals, which do not remove selection bias and are not adjusted for repeat testing of the same patient. The age comparison (under 35 vs 35 or older) is a Pearson chi-square test on the grouped counts in Table 2 (χ² ≈ 12.0, p < 0.001); it is exploratory, includes repeat tests and is not adjusted for other factors.[L][15]
Public-health sources and clinical guidelines are used to explain the findings; they do not constitute endorsement of this report. The report has not undergone journal peer review.
Source and interests: data arise from commercial testing at Auspicious Laboratory, Inc., which has a commercial interest in the subject. Citations do not imply participation, co-authorship, certification or endorsement by public agencies or external researchers. Only aggregates are presented; no patient-level records are published. The laboratory’s credentials are listed on our CLIA and CAP credentials page, and editorial standards on our medical review and editorial policy page.
FAQ
What else do readers ask about this report?
What was detected most often in these testing records?
Ureaplasma urealyticum (UU) was detected in 139 of 377 valid results (36.9%) and Gardnerella vaginalis (GV) in 127 of 392 (32.4%), followed by Mycoplasma hominis in 31 of 388 (8.0%), at Auspicious Laboratory’s Houston Westchase testing location from January 2025 to a September 27, 2026 data snapshot, repeat tests included. These are detection rates in a self-selected testing sample, not community prevalence, and because the denominators differ and overlap, the percentages cannot simply be added.
If Ureaplasma or Gardnerella is detected, is treatment needed?
Not automatically. In Auspicious Laboratory’s Houston Westchase testing records (January 2025–September 27, 2026), Ureaplasma urealyticum and Gardnerella vaginalis were the two most frequent detections, but a detection is a laboratory finding, not a treatment decision. Ureaplasma urealyticum can be present without causing disease, and a positive result by itself does not decide treatment. Gardnerella vaginalis detection alone does not establish bacterial vaginosis. Symptoms, specimen site, examination findings and other tests determine whether treatment is appropriate, and a clinician makes that decision.
Can a negative test taken soon after an exposure rule out infection?
Not always. Each test has a window period between exposure and reliable detection, so a test performed too early may only mean “not detected at this time.” For HIV, CDC lists usual windows of about 18–45 days for a laboratory antigen/antibody test using venous blood and 18–90 days for a rapid finger-stick test. A possible HIV exposure within 72 hours calls for prompt clinical assessment for PEP rather than waiting for a later test; this is CDC guidance, not a finding of this study, and the laboratory does not provide PEP.
Is age associated with STI detection in this report?
In this sample, yes: the combined four-STI measure was 15.8% (38 of 241 panels) under age 35 and 4.2% (6 of 144) at 35 or older, with a Pearson chi-square of about 12.0 and p below 0.001. The comparison is exploratory, includes repeat tests and is not adjusted for sex, symptoms, referral source, exposures or specimen site, so it does not show that age causes infection and is not an individual risk multiplier.
Does 25 of 318 (7.9%) mean the chlamydia or gonorrhea tests were wrong?
No. At Auspicious Laboratory’s Houston Westchase testing location (January 2025–September 27, 2026), among 318 first records negative for both chlamydia and gonorrhea, 25 detected Trichomonas vaginalis or Mycoplasma genitalium by a different test. Different tests answer different questions: the 7.9% figure is a secondary finding, not a false-negative rate, and not evidence that another provider missed a diagnosis.
Has this report been peer reviewed or endorsed by a public agency?
No. It has not undergone journal peer review. Citing CDC, Harris County Public Health, the U.S. Census Bureau, NIST, the European STI Guidelines Editorial Board or published studies does not imply their participation, certification or endorsement.
Citation
How should this report be cited?
Suggested citation:
Auspicious Laboratory, Inc. West Houston STD Research Report 2025–2026: a single-center review of STI and HIV testing records, January 2025–September 27, 2026 (data snapshot 2026-09-27; research-focus revision). Houston, TX: Auspicious Laboratory, Inc.; published 2026-09-28, updated 2026-09-29. https://www.auspiciouslab.com/research/west-houston-std-report-2025-2026/
Canonical URL: https://www.auspiciouslab.com/research/west-houston-std-report-2025-2026/
When quoting a figure, keep the numerator, denominator, time frame and setting together—for example, “Ureaplasma urealyticum was detected in 139 of 377 valid results (36.9%) at Auspicious Laboratory’s Houston Westchase testing location, January 2025–September 27, 2026, repeat tests included.” Please do not describe detection rates as community prevalence, a detection as a diagnosis, 25/318 as a false-negative rate, or the age association as causation or individual risk.
Chinese edition: 中文版研究报告 · All reports: Research & Data Reports
Sources
Which sources does this report cite?
Local figures come from the laboratory’s aggregate research files. Scenarios are educational illustrations, not patient cases. Public sources do not endorse this report. Source numbers match those used in the news release for this report.
2025-01 through the 2026-09-27 extraction snapshot; 465 included orders. Overall report v1 and deepening addendum v2, reconciled against the supplied aggregate and coded-result files. Original laboratory reports and patient linkage were not independently re-audited for this publication. This edition rewrites the public explanation; the headline counts are checked against the supplied v2 aggregate JSON. The exploratory age chi-square is computed from the grouped counts in Table 2. No new patient-level analysis or raw-report audit is claimed.
Pages 13, 16 and 19. Age distributions: 2016–2022. County/state rates: 2022 preliminary data.
Sex Transm Dis. 2025;52:523–528. DOI: 10.1097/OLQ.0000000000002165. Observation: 2019–2023, ages 15–60.
BMC Public Health. 2026;26:2186. DOI: 10.1186/s12889-026-27715-4. Observation: January 2022–April 2024, ages 15–44.
ACS 2020–2024; language other than English spoken at home, people age 5+.
ACS 2020–2024; language other than English spoken at home, people age 5+.
Clinical indications; routine asymptomatic screening is not recommended.
Interpretation and testing indications, including Ureaplasma and M. hominis.
Diagnosis and appropriate use of molecular testing.
Screening populations, anatomic sites and follow-up recommendations.
Specimen selection and limitations of negative nucleic acid results.
Serologic and direct-detection approaches are not interchangeable.
Test type and timing affect interpretation.
Historical national context; not 2026 local surveillance.
Westchase location and general contact information.
Wilson score intervals. Intervals do not remove selection bias or within-patient correlation.
PEP is time-sensitive and must start within 72 hours after a possible HIV exposure; seek immediate clinical assessment.
Asymptomatic infection, screening, reproductive complications, partner evaluation and approximately three-month retesting after treatment.
Anatomic-site testing, partner management and retesting after treatment.
Clinical testing indications and follow-up; retesting guidance differs by patient group.
State STD surveillance data for 2022, including Harris County. Cited in the news release that accompanies this report; not merged with this laboratory sample.
Overview of bacterial vaginosis, its risk factors and prevention.
J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2018;32(11):1845–1851. DOI: 10.1111/jdv.15146. Ureaplasma / M. hominis position statement on testing and interpretation.
How can I reach the lab privately?
No name needed to ask a question. Text is the fastest way to reach us.
Or send your details below — we will reply by text or email during open hours.