ArticleSexually transmitted infections1999
British Co-operative Clinical Group national survey on diagnostic issues surrounding genital herpes. MSSVD Special Interest Group on Genital Herpes and the British Co-operative Clinical Group.
Article in Sexually transmitted infections, 1999. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Diagnosis of genital herpes by real time PCR in routine clinical practice.Sexually transmitted infections · 2004Trial
- Light microscopy, culture, molecular, and serologic methods for detection of herpes simplex virus.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2014Review
- National survey of diagnostic services for genital herpes.Sexually transmitted infections · 2005Article
- Using the evidence base on genital herpes: optimising the use of diagnostic tests and information provision.Sexually transmitted infections · 2002Review
- Polymerase chain reaction for diagnosis of genital herpes in a genitourinary medicine clinic.Sexually transmitted infections · 2002Article
- Sorting out the new HSV type specific antibody tests.Sexually transmitted infections · 2001Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo investigate the current use of diagnostic methods for genital herpes simplex virus (HSV) infection, to determine how information from these tests influences clinical practice, and to identify areas for future guideline development within genitourinary medicine (GUM) clinics in the United Kingdom.
methodsNational survey of 173 consultants in UK GUM clinics.
resultsCompleted questionnaires were returned by 146 (84%) consultants. Cell culture was the first line diagnostic method for 133 (91%) respondents, the remaining 13 (9%) used antigen detection tests. Typing of isolates (HSV-1 or HSV-2) was available in their local laboratory to 109 (75%) clinicians; however, less than two thirds routinely pass this information on to their patients. Although 74 (51%) respondents had access to serological diagnosis, the majority of methods described were non-specific; only three (2%) had access to type specific tests. Only 81 (56%) respondents frequently (> 90% of the time) recommend notification of recent sexual partners of genital herpes patients.
conclusionsWhile access to culture based diagnosis is widespread, type specific serology has limited availability. Information on typing of isolates as HSV-1 or 2, although available in three quarters of centres, is underutilized in counselling patients. As HSV type influences both clinical and subclinical reactivation rates and may also affect probability of transmission, this is an important omission. Future guidelines need to address the optimal use of viral typing and new diagnostic tests to optimise health gain; there is also a need for evidence based recommendations about partner notification in genital herpes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.