Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22386229›Full record

Trial reportContraception2012

Prostate-specific antigen as a biomarker of condom failure: comparison of three laboratory assays and self-reported condom use problems in a randomized trial of female condom performance.

Terri Walsh, Lee Warner, Maurizio Macaluso, Ron Frezieres, Margaret Snead, Brian Wraxall

Abstract readComparative StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Contraception, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–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.

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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
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

6 authors.

Terri WalshCalifornia Family Health Council, Los Angeles, CA 90010, USA.
Lee Warner
Maurizio Macaluso
Ron Frezieres
Margaret Snead
Brian Wraxall

Funding

Intramural CDC HHS CC999999
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundProstate-specific antigen (PSA), a biomarker for semen exposure, may provide a more objective measure of condom failure than subject self-reports. Methods for measuring PSA vary and their comparability with respect to assessing condom performance has not been adequately evaluated. This study compared results from three different PSA assays of vaginal samples collected by subjects in a randomized clinical trial which compared the performance of female condoms. STUDY

designWe selected 30 pairs of pre- and post-coital vaginal samples from subjects who reported condom functionality problems or whose original PSA assay was positive. Samples were retested using three different PSA assays [quantitative enzyme-linked immunoassay (EIA), rocket immune-electrophoresis (RIE) and chromatographic immunoassay (CIA)]. We compared the proportion of condom uses where the post-coital PSA result indicated semen exposure for each of the three assays.

resultsDespite varying levels of sensitivity, the results from all three assays were remarkably consistent. Self-reported condom failures did not correlate well with positive PSA results, suggesting that exclusive reliance on either PSA or user self-report may be inadequate for assessing condom functionality.

conclusionIn combination with user self-report of condom failure, PSA testing provides a reliable, objective marker of condom functionality. Studies based on PSA testing may improve on conventional contraceptive clinical trials by offering a more direct assessment of a condom product's ability to prevent semen exposure.

Indexed as

BiomarkersDiagnostic Self EvaluationEquipment FailureFemaleHumansMaleProstate-Specific AntigenSingle-Use Internal CondomBiomarkersProstate-Specific Antigen

Identifiers

PMID22386229
PMCPMC4547345

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.