SynthesisBMJ clinical evidence2009
Partner notification.
Synthesis in BMJ clinical evidence, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Acceptability and efficacy of partner notification for curable sexually transmitted infections in sub-Saharan Africa: A systematic review.International journal of STD & AIDS · 2019Pooled it
- Developing and validating a risk algorithm to diagnose Neisseria gonorrhoeae and Chlamydia trachomatis in symptomatic Rwandan women.BMC infectious diseases · 2021Article
- Pathways to, and use of, sexual healthcare among Black Caribbean sexual health clinic attendees in England: evidence from cross-sectional bio-behavioural surveys.BMC health services research · 2019Article
- Current practices of partner notification among MSM with HIV, gonorrhoea and syphilis in the Netherlands: an urgent need for improvement.BMC infectious diseases · 2012Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionMany people diagnosed with a sexually transmitted disease (STD) do not have symptoms, and may not inform their past or current sexual partners of their diagnosis or routinely use condoms. Several strategies have been used to notify and treat partners of people diagnosed with an STD, but only a limited number of RCTs of their effectiveness have been undertaken. METHODS AND OUTCOMES: We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: What are the effects of partner notification strategies in people with different STDs? What are the effects of interventions to improve effectiveness of patient referral in people with STDs? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to August 2008 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically; please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
resultsWe found 17 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.
conclusionsIn this systematic review, we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: contract referral; counselling (both alone and in combination with educational interventions) of index patients; educational interventions for the index patient; information for the index patient or partner; outreach assistance; patient referral; patient referral via different types of healthcare professional; patient-delivered partner therapy; patient-delivered home-sampling kits; provider referral; and reminders (any format) for the index patient.
Indexed as
Identifiers
21733200PMC2907794W4301670950What 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.