ArticleSexually transmitted infections2003
Repeat chlamydia screening by mail, San Francisco.
Article in Sexually transmitted infections, 2003. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 28 citations in OpenAlex.
- Bacterial Sexually Transmitted Disease Screening Outside the Clinic--Implications for the Modern Sexually Transmitted Disease Program.Sexually transmitted diseases · 2016Pooled it
- Obtaining self-samples to diagnose curable sexually transmitted infections: a systematic review of patients' experiences.PloS one · 2015Pooled it
- Rationale and design of REACT: a randomised controlled trial assessing the effectiveness of home-collection to increase chlamydia retesting and detect repeat positive tests.BMC infectious diseases · 2014Trial
- Home screening for sexually transmitted diseases in high-risk young women: randomised controlled trial.Sexually transmitted infections · 2007Trial
- New strategies for biosample collection in population-based social research.Social science research · 2013Article
- Monitoring STI prevalence using telephone surveys and mailed urine specimens: a pilot test.Sexually transmitted infections · 2005Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo assess the feasibility and acceptability of home screening for repeat chlamydial infection using urine test kits sent through the mail.
methodsA letter offering home rescreening was mailed to 399 adults who previously tested positive for chlamydia. Kits were then mailed to anyone who did not actively decline. The home testing kits contained instructions on how to collect a urine specimen and return the specimen by mail. Specimens were tested with strand displacement amplification. A short survey asked individuals their level of concern about confidentiality, safety, and privacy of mail screening.
resultsAmong the 313 potential test kit recipients, 22.4% responded. Response rates were highest among homosexual and bisexual men (38.6%), people 35 years or older (34.3%), and white people (34.6%). The overall positivity rate was 3.2% (2/63). In women 18-25 years old, the positivity was 13.3% (2/15).
conclusionsHome testing with mailed urine collection kits is feasible and an acceptable method to screen for recurrent chlamydial infection. Young women would probably benefit most because of their higher rates of reinfection and risk for sequelae.
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.