Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21284887›Full record

ArticleBMC infectious diseases2011

'The difference in determinants of Chlamydia trachomatis and Mycoplasma genitalium in a sample of young Australian women'.

Jennifer Walker, Christopher K Fairley, Catriona S Bradshaw, Sepehr N Tabrizi, Marcus Y Chen, Jimmy Twin, Nicole Taylor, Basil Donovan, John K Kaldor, Kathleen McNamee and 11 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC infectious diseases, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
7.7field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

25 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 89 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Prevalence ofSexually transmitted infections · 2018
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Comparison between Abbott m2000 RealTime and Alinity m STI systems for detection of Chlamydia trachomatis, Neisseria gonorrhoeae, and Mycoplasma genitalium.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2021
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Observational
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. New Horizons in Mycoplasma genitalium Treatment.The Journal of infectious diseases · 2017
    Review
  14. Mycoplasma genitalium Infection in Men.The Journal of infectious diseases · 2017
    Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Mycoplasma genitalium testing pattern and macrolide resistance: a Danish nationwide retrospective survey.Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2014
    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

21 authors at 9 institutions in 2 countries.

Jennifer WalkerCentre for Women's Health, Gender and Society, School of Population Health, University of Melbourne, Victoria 3010, Australia. walker@unimelb.edu.au
Christopher K Fairley
Catriona S Bradshaw
Sepehr N Tabrizi
Marcus Y Chen
Jimmy Twin
Nicole Taylor
Basil Donovan
John K Kaldor
Kathleen McNamee
Eve Urban
Sandra Walker
Marian Currie
Hudson Birden
Francis Bowden
Jane Gunn
Marie Pirotta
Lyle Gurrin
Veerakathy Harindra
Suzanne Garland
Jane S Hocking
University of Melbourne · AURoyal Women's Hospital · AUAustralian National University · AUNational Centre for Clinical Research on Emerging Drugs · AUAlfred Health · AUFamily Planning NSW · AUMonash University · AUSt Mary's Hospital · GBUniversity of Sydney · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDifferences in the determinants of Chlamydia trachomatis ('chlamydia') and Mycoplasma genitalium (MG) genital infection in women are not well understood.

methodsA cohort study of 16 to 25 year old Australian women recruited from primary health care clinics, aimed to determine chlamydia and MG prevalence and incidence. Vaginal swabs collected at recruitment were used to measure chlamydia and MG prevalence, organism-load and chlamydia-serovar a cross-sectional analysis undertaken on the baseline results is presented here.

resultsOf 1116 participants, chlamydia prevalence was 4.9% (95% CI: 2.9, 7.0) (n = 55) and MG prevalence was 2.4% (95% CI: 1.5, 3.3) (n = 27). Differences in the determinants were found - chlamydia not MG, was associated with younger age [AOR:0.9 (95% CI: 0.8, 1.0)] and recent antibiotic use [AOR:0.4 (95% CI: 0.2, 1.0)], and MG not chlamydia was associated with symptoms [AOR:2.1 (95% CI: 1.1, 4.0)]. Having two or more partners in last 12 months was more strongly associated with chlamydia [AOR:6.4 (95% CI: 3.6, 11.3)] than MG [AOR:2.2 (95% CI: 1.0, 4.6)] but unprotected sex with three or more partners was less strongly associated with chlamydia [AOR:3.1 (95%CI: 1.0, 9.5)] than MG [AOR:16.6 (95%CI: 2.0, 138.0)]. Median organism load for MG was 100 times lower (5.7 × 104/swab) than chlamydia (5.6 × 106/swab) (p < 0.01) and not associated with age or symptoms for chlamydia or MG.

conclusionsThese results demonstrate significant chlamydia and MG prevalence in Australian women, and suggest that the differences in strengths of association between numbers of sexual partners and unprotected sex and chlamydia and MG might be due to differences in the transmission dynamics between these infections.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAustraliaChlamydia InfectionsChlamydia trachomatisCohort StudiesCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansIncidenceMycoplasma genitaliumMycoplasma InfectionsPrevalenceSexual PartnersVaginal SmearsYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID21284887
PMCPMC3038161
OpenAlexW2002446104

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.