ArticleInfection2011
Diagnostic relevance of simultaneous testing for Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhoeae.
Article in Infection, 2011. 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, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Gonorrhoea: a systematic review of prevalence reporting globally.BMC infectious diseases · 2021Pooled it
- Testing for Chlamydia trachomatis: time trends in positivity rates in the canton of Basel-Stadt, Switzerland.Epidemiology and infection · 2013Article
- Chlamydia trachomatis prevalence, genotype distribution and identification of the new Swedish variant in Southern Germany.Infection · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe prevalence of Chlamydia trachomatis (CT) and Neisseria gonorrhoeae (NG) infection in a Swiss cohort among individuals consulting for screening or symptomatic reasons is not very well known.
methodsBetween January 2009 and January 2010, diagnostic samples referred to us to test for either CT or NG or both were simultaneously analysed for both infections. Testing was performed using the commercial m2000sp and m2000rt devices from Abbott Diagnostics involving automated DNA extraction and semi-quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR), respectively.
resultsA total of 9,245 individuals (8,009 female, 1,236 male) were tested. CT alone was found in 318 (3.97%) samples from female patients and NG infections were found in 5 (0.06%) of the female samples. Six (0.08%) women had both CT and NG infections. The numbers for males were 72 (5.83%) for CT alone, 18 (1.14%) for NG alone and 8 (0.65%) for coincident infections. Among women, a selective testing approach in which only the presence of CT was investigated missed six NG cases (0.07% prevalence, 54.55% of all NG-positive women) and the request to test only for NG missed two CT cases (0.02% prevalence, 0.62% of all CT-positive women). For the male samples, one NG case (0.08% prevalence, 3.85% of all NG-positive men) was missed when only CT was requested and three CT cases (0.24% prevalence, 3.75% of all CT-positive men) were overlooked when only NG testing was requested.
conclusionA sizeable number (12) of CT and NG cases is missed by physician-referred testing for only one of the two pathogens.
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.