SynthesisBMC public health2013
Home-based chlamydia and gonorrhoea screening: a systematic review of strategies and outcomes.
Synthesis in BMC public health, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 5 of them syntheses 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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Direct Access for Patients to Diagnostic Testing and Results Using eHealth: Systematic Review on eHealth and Diagnostics.Journal of medical Internet research · 2022Pooled it
- Screening for chlamydia and/or gonorrhea in primary health care: systematic reviews on effectiveness and patient preferences.Systematic reviews · 2021Pooled it
- Primary care integration of sexual and reproductive health services for chlamydia testing across WHO-Europe: a systematic review.BMJ open · 2019Pooled it
- Self-collection of samples as an additional approach to deliver testing services for sexually transmitted infections: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMJ global health · 2019Pooled it
- A review of current practices to increase Chlamydia screening in the community--a consumer-centred social marketing perspective.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2016Pooled it
- Performance and acceptability of self-collected specimens for diagnosis of rectal and pharyngeal Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhoeae infections among men who have sex with men in China: a randomized controlled trial.BMC infectious diseases · 2024Trial
- The influence of two different invitation letters on Chlamydia testing participation: randomized controlled trial.Journal of medical Internet research · 2014Trial
- Screening for chlamydia and/or gonorrhea in primary health care: protocol for systematic review.Systematic reviews · 2018Article
- Innovative Approach for Enhancing Testing of HIV, Hepatitis B, and Hepatitis C in the General Population: Protocol for an Acceptability and Feasibility Study (BaroTest 2016).JMIR research protocols · 2018Article
- Expanding syphilis testing: a scoping review of syphilis testing interventions among key populations.Expert review of anti-infective therapy · 2018Article
- Community-Based Assessment to Inform a Chlamydia Screening Program for Women in a Rural American Indian Community.Sexually transmitted diseases · 2016Article
- Exploring pharmacy and home-based sexually transmissible infection testing.Sexual health · 2015Article
- Acceptability of home-based chlamydia and gonorrhea testing among a national sample of sexual minority young adults.Perspectives on sexual and reproductive health · 2015Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn many countries, low Chlamydia trachomatis (CT) and Neisseria gonorrhoeae (NG) screening rates among young people in primary-care have encouraged screening programs outside of clinics. Nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs) make it possible to screen people in homes with self-collected specimens. We systematically reviewed the strategies and outcomes of home-based CT/NG screening programs.
methodsElectronic databases were searched for home-based CT and/or NG screening studies published since January 2005. Screening information (e.g. target group, recruitment and specimen-collection method) and quantitative outcomes (e.g. number of participants, tests and positivity) were extracted. The screening programs were classified into seven groups on the basis of strategies used.
resultsWe found 29 eligible papers describing 32 home-based screening programs. In seven outreach programs, people were approached in their homes: a median of 97% participants provided specimens and 76% were tested overall (13717 tests). In seven programs, people were invited to receive postal test-kits (PTKs) at their homes: a median of 37% accepted PTKs, 79% returned specimens and 19% were tested (46225 tests). PTKs were sent along with invitation letters in five programs: a median of 33% returned specimens and 29% of those invited were tested (15126 tests). PTKs were requested through the internet or phone without invitations in four programs and a median of 32% returned specimens (2666 tests). Four programs involved study personnel directly inviting people to receive PTKs: a median of 46% accepted PTKs, 21% returned specimens and 9.1% were tested (341 tests). PTKs were picked-up from designated locations in three programs: a total of 6765 kits were picked-up and 1167 (17%) specimens were returned for screening. Two programs used a combination of above strategies (2395 tests) but the outcomes were not reported separately. The overall median CT positivity was 3.6% (inter-quartile range: 1.7-7.3%).
conclusionsA variety of strategies have been used in home-based CT/NG screening programs. The screening strategies and their feasibility in the local context need to be carefully considered to maximize the effectiveness of home-based screening programs.
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.