Evidence map›Paper›PMID 17301105›Full record

Trial reportSexually transmitted infections2007

Home screening for sexually transmitted diseases in high-risk young women: randomised controlled trial.

Robert L Cook, Lars Østergaard, Sharon L Hillier, Pamela J Murray, Chung-Chou H Chang, Diane M Comer, Roberta B Ness, DAISY study team

Registry-linked trialAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Sexually transmitted infections, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT01849653 (Self-Obtained Vaginal Swabs for Chlamydia and Gonorrhea Testing), which is not on this map. Cited by 40 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
40citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT01849653 completednot on this mapstarted 2014, after this paper: background citation

Self-Obtained Vaginal Swabs for Chlamydia and Gonorrhea Testing: Concurrence in Non-Clinical Settings vs. Clinical Settings

TypeobservationalSponsorUniversity of California, San FranciscoRan2014 to 2015Enrolled3,500ConditionsChlamydial Infection, Gonococcal Infection
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

40 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Guideline
  7. Home Screening for Bacterial Vaginosis to Prevent Sexually Transmitted Diseases.Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2016
    Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Article
  13. Breast health screening: a UK-wide questionnaire.BMJ nutrition, prevention & health · 2021
    Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Observational
  19. Screening for genital chlamydia infection.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2016
    Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Robert L CookDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics and Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32610, Florida, USA. cookrl@phhp.ufl.edu
Lars Østergaard
Sharon L Hillier
Pamela J Murray
Chung-Chou H Chang
Diane M Comer
Roberta B Ness
DAISY study team

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveHome screening tests could eliminate several barriers to testing sexually transmitted diseases (STDs).

aimTo determine whether offering repeated home screening tests would increase the rate of testing for chlamydia and gonorrhoea in a high-risk sample of young women.

methodsIn this randomised controlled trial, 403 young women (mean age 18.9 years, 70% black) with a recent STD or with STD-related risk factors were enrolled. Participants were recruited from clinics and high-prevalence neighbourhoods and then randomly assigned to receive either a home testing kit or an invitation to attend a medical clinic for testing at 6, 12 and 18 months after enrollment. Over 80% of women were followed for 2 years. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT 00177437.

resultsOf 197 women in the intervention group, 140 (71%) returned at least one home test and 25 of 249 (10%) home tests were positive. Women who received home screening tests completed significantly more STD tests overall (1.94 vs 1.41 tests per woman-year, p<0.001) and more STD tests in the absence of symptoms (1.18 vs 0.75 tests per woman-year, p<0.001). More women in the intervention group completed at least one test when asymptomatic (162 (82.2%) vs 117 (61.3%), p<0.001). The intervention was most effective among women recruited outside medical clinics. There was no significant difference in the overall rate of STDs detected.

conclusionsHome screening significantly increased the utilisation of chlamydia and gonorrhoea testing in this sample of high-risk young women, and thus represents a feasible strategy to facilitate STD testing in young women.

Indexed as

Chlamydia trachomatisAdolescentAdultChlamydia InfectionsFemaleGonorrheaHome Care ServicesHumansMass ScreeningPatient Acceptance of Health CareRisk FactorsSensitivity and Specificity

Identifiers

PMID17301105
PMCPMC2598665

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.