Chlamydia screening in primary care.

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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

1. A study of young peoples' attitudes to opportunistic Chlamydia testing in UK general practice.Reproductive health · 2008
   Article
2. Establishing the National Chlamydia Screening Programme in England: results from the first full year of screening.Sexually transmitted infections · 2004
   Article
3. Train GPs to provide good sexual health care.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2004
   Article
4. Chlamydia screening in primary care.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2004
   Article

Corrections and comments

• Commented on by
  Chlamydia screening in primary care.2004
• Commented on by
  Train GPs to provide good sexual health care.2004
• Comment on
  Barriers to opportunistic chlamydia testing in primary care.2004
• Comment on
  Self-reported experiences of health services among female street-based prostitutes: a cross-sectional survey.2004

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as