ArticleBMJ open2014
Comparison of patients diagnosed with gonorrhoea through community screening with those self-presenting to the genitourinary medicine clinic.
Article in BMJ open, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Estimating gonorrhoea prevalence in young heterosexual men and women attending community-based sexual health services to inform decisions on gonorrhoea testing.Epidemiology and infection · 2017Article
- A Rare Case of Disseminated Pyogenic Gonococcal Infection in an Immunocompetent Woman.Case reports in infectious diseases · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo compare the clinical, socioeconomic and demographic characteristics of individuals diagnosed with Neisseria gonorrhoeae (NG) in the community using a concomitant nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT, AptimaCombo2) as part of the (community-based) UK Chlamydia Screening Programme (CSP), with those diagnosed in hospital-based genitourinary medicine (GUM) services.
designA retrospective case note review of all 643 patients treated for NG at a GUM in north west England (January 2007-April 2009).
participantsAll 643 treated for NG (including CSP cases, since all cases were referred to GUM for treatment). Limited data were available for 13 CSP cases who failed to attend GUM. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURE: Whether the case was detected in the community or GUM services. Predictors were demographics (age, gender, postcode for deprivation analysis), sexual history (eg, number of partners) and clinical factors (eg, culture positivity).
results131 cases were diagnosed by CSP (13 of whom did not attend GUM). A further four cases were contacts of these. The GUM caseload was thus inflated by 23% (from 521 to 643). Community cases were overwhelmingly female (85% vs 27% in GUM, p<0.001) and younger (87% females were <25 years vs 70% GUM females, p=0.001). Logistic regression analysis restricted to the target age of the CSP (<25 years) revealed that CSP cases, compared with GUM cases, were more likely to reside in deprived areas (adjusted OR=5.6, 95% CI 1.4 to 21.8 and 5.3, CI 1.7 to 16.6 for the most and second most deprived group respectively, compared with the averagely deprived group, p=0.037) and be asymptomatic (adjusted OR=1.9, CI 1.1 to 3.4, p=0.02).
conclusionsCommunity screening for NG led to a 79% increase in the number of infections detected in women aged <25 years. Screening is targeted at young people, and tends to disproportionately attract young women, a group under-represented at GUM. Screening also contributed further to case detection in deprived areas.
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.