Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23236033›Full record

ArticleBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2012

Assessment of self taken swabs versus clinician taken swab cultures for diagnosing gonorrhoea in women: single centre, diagnostic accuracy study.

Catherine M W Stewart, Sarah A Schoeman, Russell A Booth, Susan D Smith, Mark H Wilcox, Janet D Wilson

Open access · hybridAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
4.0field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 61 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Guideline
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. The Laboratory Diagnosis ofPathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Canadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien · 2018
    Article
  15. Vaginal self-swabs for chlamydia and gonorrhea.Canadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien · 2018
    Article
  16. Self-taken vaginal swabs versus clinician-taken for detection of candida and bacterial vaginosis: a case-control study in primary care.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2017
    Article
  17. Review
  18. PURLs: Is self-swabbing for STIs a good idea?The Journal of family practice · 2013
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Catherine M W StewartDepartment of Genitourinary Medicine, Leeds General Infirmary, Leeds LS1 3EX, UK.
Sarah A Schoeman
Russell A Booth
Susan D Smith
Mark H Wilcox
Janet D Wilson
Leeds General Infirmary · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo compare gonorrhoea detection by self taken vulvovaginal swabs (tested with nucleic acid amplification tests) with the culture of urethral and endocervical samples taken by clinicians.

designProspective study of diagnostic accuracy.

setting1 sexual health clinic in an urban setting (Leeds Centre for Sexual Health, United Kingdom), between March 2009 and January 2010.

participantsWomen aged 16 years or older, attending the clinic for sexually transmitted infection (STI) testing and consenting to perform a vulvovaginal swab themselves before routine examination. During examination, clinicians took urethral and endocervical samples for culture and an endocervical swab for nucleic acid amplification testing.

interventionsUrethra and endocervix samples were analysed by gonococcal culture. Vulvovaginal swabs and endocervical swabs were analysed by the Aptima Combo 2 (AC2) assay; positive results from this assay were confirmed with a second nucleic acid amplification test.

main outcome measuresPositive confirmation of gonorrhoea.

resultsOf 3859 women with complete data and test results, 96 (2.5%) were infected with gonorrhoea (overall test sensitivities: culture 81%, endocervical swabs with AC2 96%, vulvovaginal swabs with AC2 99%). The AC2 assays were more sensitive than culture (P<0.001), but the endocervical and vulvovaginal assays did not differ significantly (P=0.375). Specificity of all Aptima Combo 2 tests was 100%. Of 1625 women who had symptoms suggestive of a bacterial STI, 56 (3.4%) had gonorrhoea (culture 84%, endocervical AC2 100%, vulvovaginal AC2 100%). The AC2 assays were more sensitive than culture (P=0.004), and the endocervical and vulvovaginal assays were equivalent to each other. Of 2234 women who did not have symptoms suggesting a bacterial STI, 40 (1.8%) had gonorrhoea (culture 78%, endocervical AC2 90%, vulvovaginal AC2 98%). The vulvovaginal swab was more sensitive than culture (P=0.008), but there was no difference between the endocervical and vulvovaginal AC2 assays (P=0.375) or between the endocervical AC2 assay and culture (P=0.125). The endocervical swab assay performed less well in women without symptoms of a bacterial STI than in those with symptoms (90% v 100%, P=0.028), whereas the vulvovaginal swab assay performed similarly (98% v 100%, P=0.42).

conclusionSelf taken vulvovaginal swabs analysed by nucleic acid amplification tests are significantly more sensitive at detecting gonorrhoea than culture of clinician taken urethral and endocervical samples, and are equivalent to endocervical swabs analysed by nucleic acid amplification tests. Self taken vulvovaginal swabs are the sample of choice in women without symptoms and have the advantage of being non-invasive. In women who need a clinical examination, either a clinician taken or self taken vulvovaginal swab is recommended.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAge FactorsCervix UteriFemaleGonorrheaGynecological ExaminationHumansMiddle AgedNeisseria gonorrhoeaeNucleic Acid Amplification TechniquesPelvic Inflammatory DiseaseProspective StudiesRacial GroupsSensitivity and SpecificitySpecimen Handling

Identifiers

PMID23236033
PMCPMC3520546
OpenAlexW2078990668

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.