ReviewSexually transmitted infections2006
Testing specimens for Chlamydia trachomatis.
Review in Sexually transmitted infections, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparison the diagnostic value of serological and molecular methods for screening and detecting Chlamydia trachomatis in semen of infertile men: A cross-sectional study.International journal of reproductive biomedicine · 2017Article
- Filling in the gaps: estimating numbers of chlamydia tests and diagnoses by age group and sex before and during the implementation of the English National Screening Programme, 2000 to 2012.Euro surveillance : bulletin Europeen sur les maladies transmissibles = European communicable disease bulletin · 2017Article
- Is chlamydia screening and testing in Britain reaching young adults at risk of infection? Findings from the third National Survey of Sexual Attitudes and Lifestyles (Natsal-3).Sexually transmitted infections · 2016Article
- Whole-genome sequences of Chlamydia trachomatis directly from clinical samples without culture.Genome research · 2013Article
- Vulvovaginal-swab or first-catch urine specimen to detect Chlamydia trachomatis in women in a community setting?Journal of clinical microbiology · 2006Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The introduction of NAATs has revolutionised chlamydial diagnostics and these tests are now the standard of care. However, as with all new technologies, they have also presented new challenges. This review attempts to answer some of the questions that have been raised, particularly by groups about to embark on implementing a screening programme. Laboratory tests are continually changing but it is hoped that the paper provides a useful update of the current situation.
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.