Trial reportBMC infectious diseases2013
Retesting for genital Chlamydia trachomatis among visitors of a sexually transmitted infections clinic: randomized intervention trial of home- versus clinic-based recall.
Trial report in BMC infectious diseases, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 2 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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 30 citations in OpenAlex.
- At-home specimen self-collection as an additional testing strategy for chlamydia and gonorrhoea: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis.BMJ global health · 2024Pooled it
- Home-based versus clinic-based specimen collection in the management of Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhoeae infections.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2015Pooled it
- Rationale and design of REACT: a randomised controlled trial assessing the effectiveness of home-collection to increase chlamydia retesting and detect repeat positive tests.BMC infectious diseases · 2014Trial
- Patterns of sexual behaviour associated with repeated chlamydia testing and infection in men and women: a latent class analysis.BMC public health · 2022Article
- The characteristics of patients frequently tested and repeatedly infected with Chlamydia trachomatis in Southwest Limburg, the Netherlands.BMC public health · 2020Article
- Acceptability and Feasibility of Self-Collecting Biological Specimens for HIV, Sexually Transmitted Infection, and Adherence Testing Among High-Risk Populations (Project Caboodle!): Protocol for an Exploratory Mixed-Methods Study.JMIR research protocols · 2019Article
- Accuracy of Curable Sexually Transmitted Infections and Genital Mycoplasmas Screening by Multiplex Real-Time PCR Using a Self-Collected Veil among Adult Women in Sub-Saharan Africa.Infectious diseases in obstetrics and gynecology · 2019Article
- A pill for the partner via the chlamydia patient? Results from a mixed method study among sexual health care providers in the Netherlands.BMC infectious diseases · 2018Article
- Article
- Partner notification and partner treatment for chlamydia: attitude and practice of general practitioners in the Netherlands; a landscape analysis.BMC family practice · 2017Article
- Repeat Chlamydia trachomatis testing among heterosexual STI outpatient clinic visitors in the Netherlands: a longitudinal study.BMC infectious diseases · 2017Article
- Screening for genital chlamydia infection.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2016Review
- How online sexual health services could work; generating theory to support development.BMC health services research · 2015Article
- Article
- Fully integrated e-services for prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of sexually transmitted infections: results of a 4-county study in California.American journal of public health · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundReinfections of Chlamydia trachomatis (Ct) are common. In a two-armed intervention study at an urban STI clinic in the Netherlands, heterosexual Ct-positive visitors received an invitation for retesting after 4-5 months. Interventions were either home-based sampling by mailed test-kit, or clinic-based testing without appointment.
methodsData collection included socio-demographic and sexual behavioural variables at first (T0) and repeat test (T1). Participation in retesting, prevalence and determinants of repeat infection among study participants are described and compared with findings from non-participants.
resultsOf the 216 visitors enrolled in the study, 75 accepted retesting (35%). The retest participation was 46% (50/109) in the home group versus 23% (25/107) in the clinic group (p = 0.001). Men were less often retested than women (15% versus 43%, p < 0.001). The overall chlamydia positivity rate at retest was 17.3% (13/75) compared to 12.4% seen at all visits at the STI clinic in 2011. Repeated infections were more frequent among non-Dutch than Dutch participants (27.0% versus 7.9%; p = 0.04) and in persons reporting symptoms (31.0% versus 7.0%; p = 0.01). Both untreated infections of current partners as well as unprotected sex with new partners contribute to repeated infections.
conclusionThe high rate of repeated infections indicates the need for interventions to increase retesting; improvement of partner-management and risk reduction counselling remain necessary. Home- based testing was more effective than clinic-based testing. However other strategies, including self-triage of patients, may also increase repeat testing rates and personal preferences should be taken into account.
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.