ReviewCurrent opinion in infectious diseases2011
Screening for sexually transmitted infections at home or in the clinic?
Review in Current opinion in infectious diseases, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT01654991 (A Randomized Trial of Home Versus Clinic-Based STD Testing Among Men), which is not on this map. Cited by 14 papers, 5 of them syntheses 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.
A Randomized Trial of Home Versus Clinic-Based STD Testing Among Men
Who cites it
14 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Self-collection of samples as an additional approach to deliver testing services for sexually transmitted infections: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMJ global health · 2019Pooled it
- Home-based versus clinic-based specimen collection in the management of Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhoeae infections.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2015Pooled it
- Obtaining self-samples to diagnose curable sexually transmitted infections: a systematic review of patients' experiences.PloS one · 2015Pooled it
- Home-based chlamydia and gonorrhoea screening: a systematic review of strategies and outcomes.BMC public health · 2013Pooled it
- Efficacy of interventions to increase the uptake of chlamydia screening in primary care: a systematic review.BMC infectious diseases · 2011Pooled it
- Insights from participant engagement with the tuberculosis treatment support tools intervention: Thematic analysis of interactive messages to guide refinement to better meet end user needs.International journal of medical informatics · 2021Trial
- Sexually transmitted infections, the epidemic that persists after the COVID-19 pandemic: an analysis of the primary care electronic health records covering about 5 million people in Catalonia.BMC primary care · 2024Observational
- Teledermatology in the diagnosis and treatment of sexually transmitted infections: a narrative review.Postepy dermatologii i alergologii · 2024Review
- At-Home Self-Collection of Urine or Vaginal Samples for Gonorrhea and Chlamydia Screening Among Young People Who Were Assigned Female at Birth.AJPM focus · 2023Article
- Acceptability and efficacy of vaginal self-sampling for genital infection and bacterial vaginosis: A cross-sectional study.PloS one · 2021Article
- Systematic Development of an Intervention to Promote Self-Sampling for HIV and Sexually Transmitted Infections for Men Who Have Sex With Men: An Intervention Mapping Approach.Frontiers in reproductive health · 2021Article
- Pilot implementation of a home-care programme with chlamydia, gonorrhoea, hepatitis B, and syphilis self-sampling in HIV-positive men who have sex with men.BMC infectious diseases · 2020Article
- Internet-based self-sampling forSexually transmitted infections · 2020Article
- Lessons learned from conducting a community-based, nurse-led HIV prevention trial with youth experiencing homelessness: Pivots and pitfalls.Public health nursing (Boston, Mass.)Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purpose of reviewThe aim is to assess the evidence in support of home-based versus clinic-based screening for sexually transmitted infections. RECENT
findingsHome-based screening for sexually transmitted infections has been shown to be a feasible approach for men and women from a variety of settings, including high-risk, low-income, and resource-poor communities. In recent studies, the testing rate with home-based screening was up to 11 times greater than the testing rate with clinic-based screening. For most individuals, self-collection and testing of urine or vaginal specimens at home was considered to be easy, acceptable, and often preferred over testing at a clinic. There is limited evidence with regard to the cost effectiveness of home-based versus clinic-based screening for sexually transmitted infections. However, a study from the United States concluded that home-based screening is cost saving. SUMMARY: Improvements in screening rates for sexually transmitted infections can be achieved with home-based screening methods. Making low-cost home test kits available may encourage at-risk young individuals with less access to clinic care, who may not otherwise be screened, to self-test for sexually transmitted infections.
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.