ArticleSexually transmitted infections2003
The acceptability of the introduction of a type specific herpes antibody screening test into a genitourinary medicine clinic in the United Kingdom.
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 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Diagnosis of genital herpes by real time PCR in routine clinical practice.Sexually transmitted infections · 2004Trial
- Fear of venepuncture as a barrier to testing for blood-borne infection and use of an oral fluid test as an alternative to venepuncture in a genitourinary medicine clinic.Sexually transmitted infections · 2007Article
- Diagnostics for herpes simplex virus: is PCR the new gold standard?Molecular diagnosis & therapy · 2006Review
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
objectiveTo determine the uptake of a type specific herpes simplex antibody test if it were offered as part of routine screening in a genitourinary medicine clinic in a district general hospital in the United Kingdom.
methodsStage 1. A series of 207 consecutive new attenders and 205 patients who had attended the clinic previously were given written information about the test and asked whether they would want to have the test if it were available. They were asked whether they would wish to discuss it further with a counsellor before making a decision. Stage 2. Another series of 434 consecutive patients were offered the test after reading an information leaflet detailing the advantages and disadvantages of being tested. They were also offered the opportunity to see a counsellor for further information.
resultsIn stage 1 of the study, 51% of men and 54% of women said they would want the test if it were available. 32% of men and 40% of women requested counselling. In stage 2, when the test was offered, 41% of men and 37% of women chose to have it, and 23% of men and 7% of women requested further information from the counsellor. 20 patients were herpes simplex virus type 2 (HSV-2) positive-four of whom would have been diagnosed on clinical grounds at the time of presentation. A further 12 men and 20 women excluded themselves from the study because they were known to have genital herpes. Therefore, type specific serology contributed 30% to total diagnoses in this population-16 out of a population of 52 would have remained undiagnosed without having had the test.
conclusionIn this population, the uptake of the type specific herpes simplex antibody test was much less than expected and screening was of limited benefit in identifying large numbers of previously unrecognised HSV-2 positive patients.
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.