ArticleSexually transmitted infections2005
Young, male, and infected: the forgotten victims of chlamydia in primary care.
Article in Sexually transmitted infections, 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Application of the COM-B model to barriers and facilitators to chlamydia testing in general practice for young people and primary care practitioners: a systematic review.Implementation science : IS · 2018Pooled it
- "Pee-in-a-Pot": acceptability and uptake of on-site chlamydia screening in a student population in the Republic of Ireland.BMC infectious diseases · 2010Article
- Chlamydia trachomatis load at matched anatomic sites: implications for screening strategies.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2007Article
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 identify current levels of testing men for chlamydia and establish levels of knowledge relating to chlamydia infection among practice nurses in primary care in one north Wales local area health group (LHG) as part of a study to improve delivery of sexual health services in primary care.
methodsAnonymous confidential self completed postal questionnaires were sent to 46 practice nurses employed at 22 GP practices within one north Wales LHG. On return of the questionnaires and analysis of the data using SPSS, semistructured interviews with seven practice nurses were undertaken.
resultsResponses were obtained from 33/46 (71.7%) practice nurses. The majority, 30 (90.9%), do not examine male genitalia and 18 (54.5%) have never tested male patients for chlamydia infection. 28 (84.8%) practice nurses do not consider contact tracing as part of their role.
conclusionsPrimary care has a pivotal part to play in reducing prevalence of chlamydia. The paucity of male testing for chlamydia and a lack of consistent uniform testing and contact tracing in primary care has implications for the prevalence and long term consequences of infection. There is scope to greatly increase male testing for chlamydia both for those presenting with signs and symptoms of infection and those asymptomatic. This cannot be achieved without both educational and financial support for practice nurses.
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.