ArticleSystematic reviews2013
Self-collected versus clinician-collected sampling for sexually transmitted infections: a systematic review and meta-analysis protocol.
Article in Systematic reviews, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Self-Collected versus Clinician-Collected Sampling for Chlamydia and Gonorrhea Screening: A Systemic Review and Meta-Analysis.PloS one · 2015Pooled it
- Acceptability, Barriers, and Facilitators to Home-Based Syphilis Self-testing: A Scoping Review.AIDS and behavior · 2026Review
- Prevalence of chlamydial, gonococcal and syphilis positivity by anatomical site and sex via self-collected biospecimens using at-home testing kits among a large and diverse cohort of men and women enrolled in the MACS/WIHS Combined Cohort Study (MWCCS) in the USA.Sexually transmitted infections · 2026Article
- The Relationship Between HIV Preexposure Prophylaxis Use and Laboratory-Confirmed Bacterial Sexually Transmitted Infection Positivity Among a Diverse, Multi-City Cohort of Sexually Active Sexual and Gender Minorities in the United States.AIDS patient care and STDs · 2026Article
- Article
- Article
- Evaluation of ILEX SelfCerv for Detection of High-Risk Human Papillomavirus Infection in Gynecology Clinic Attendees at a Tertiary Hospital in South Africa.Journal of clinical medicine · 2021Article
- Acceptability and feasibility of recruiting women to collect a self-administered vaginal swab at a pharmacy clinic for sexually transmissible infection screening.Sexual health · 2020Article
- Chlamydia trachomatis, Neisseria gonorrhoeae, and Trichomonas vaginalis screening and treatment of pregnant women in Port-au-Prince, Haiti.International journal of STD & AIDS · 2017Article
- Self-collected vaginal sampling for the detection of genital human papillomavirus (HPV) using careHPV among Ghanaian women.BMC women's health · 2017Article
- Missed connections: Unintended consequences of updated cervical cancer screening guidelines on screening rates for sexually transmitted infections.Canadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien · 2015Article
- Swab2know: An HIV-Testing Strategy Using Oral Fluid Samples and Online Communication of Test Results for Men Who Have Sex With Men in Belgium.Journal of medical Internet research · 2015Article
- Adolescent Preexposure Prophylaxis Administration: An Education Curriculum for Health Care Providers.Journal of pediatric health care : official publication of National Association of Pediatric Nurse Associates & PractitionersReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThree meta-analyses and one systematic review have been conducted on the question of whether self-collected specimens are as accurate as clinician-collected specimens for STI screening. However, these reviews predate 2007 and did not analyze rectal or pharyngeal collection sites. Currently, there is no consensus on which sampling method is the most effective for the diagnosis of genital chlamydia (CT), gonorrhea (GC) or human papillomavirus (HPV) infection. Our meta-analysis aims to be comprehensive in that it will examine the evidence of whether self-collected vaginal, urine, pharyngeal and rectal specimens provide as accurate a clinical diagnosis as clinician-collected samples (reference standard). METHODS/
designINCLUSION AND EXCLUSION CRITERIA: Eligible studies include both randomized and non-randomized controlled trials, pre- and post-test designs, and controlled observational studies. SEARCH STRATEGY: The databases that will be searched include the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Web of Science, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE), EMBASE and PubMed/Medline. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data will be abstracted independently by two reviewers using a standardized pre-tested data abstraction form. Heterogeneity will be assessed using the Q2 test. Sensitivity and specificity estimates with 95% confidence intervals as well as negative and positive likelihood ratios will be pooled and weighted using random effects meta-analysis, if appropriate. A hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristics curve for self-collected specimens will be generated. DISCUSSION: This synthesis involves a meta-analysis of self-collected samples (urine, vaginal, pharyngeal and rectal swabs) versus clinician-collected samples for the diagnosis of CT, GC and HPV, the most prevalent STIs. Our systematic review will allow patients, clinicians and researchers to determine the diagnostic accuracy of specimens collected by patients compared to those collected by clinicians in the detection of chlamydia, gonorrhea and HPV.
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.