Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25909508›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2015

Obtaining self-samples to diagnose curable sexually transmitted infections: a systematic review of patients' experiences.

Priyamvada Paudyal, Carrie Llewellyn, Jason Lau, Mohammad Mahmud, Helen Smith

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 63 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
63citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

63 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Recommendation on screening for chlamydia and gonorrhea in primary care for individuals not known to be at high risk.CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2021
    Guideline
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

3 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Priyamvada PaudyalDivision of Primary Care and Public Health, Brighton and Sussex Medical School, Brighton, United Kingdom.
Carrie LlewellynDivision of Primary Care and Public Health, Brighton and Sussex Medical School, Brighton, United Kingdom.
Jason LauDivision of Primary Care and Public Health, Brighton and Sussex Medical School, Brighton, United Kingdom.
Mohammad MahmudNorth-West Thames London Deanery, London, United Kingdom.
Helen SmithDivision of Primary Care and Public Health, Brighton and Sussex Medical School, Brighton, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRoutine screening is key to sexually transmitted infection (STI) prevention and control. Previous studies suggest that clinic-based screening programmes capture only a small proportion of people with STIs. Self-sampling using non- or minimally invasive techniques may be beneficial for those reluctant to actively engage with conventional sampling methods. We systematically reviewed studies of patients' experiences of obtaining self-samples to diagnose curable STIs.

methodsWe conducted an electronic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsychINFO, BNI, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews to identify relevant articles published in English between January 1980 and March 2014. Studies were included if participants self-sampled for the diagnosis of a curable STI and had specifically sought participants' opinions of their experience, acceptability, preferences, or willingness to self-sample.

resultsThe initial search yielded 558 references. Of these, 45 studies met the inclusion criteria. Thirty-six studies assessed patients' acceptability and experiences of self-sampling. Pooled results from these studies shows that self-sampling is a highly acceptable method with 85% of patients reporting the method to be well received and acceptable. Twenty-eight studies reported on ease of self-sampling; the majority of patients (88%) in these studies found self-sampling an "easy" procedure. Self-sampling was favoured compared to clinician sampling, and home sampling was preferred to clinic-based sampling. Females and older participants were more accepting of self-sampling. Only a small minority of participants (13%) reported pain during self-sampling. Participants were willing to undergo self-sampling and recommend others. Privacy and safety were the most common concerns.

conclusionSelf-sampling for diagnostic testing is well accepted with the majority having a positive experience and willingness to use again. Standardization of self-sampling procedures and rigorous validation of outcome measurement will lead to better comparability across studies. Future studies need to conduct rigorous economic evaluations of self-sampling to inform policy development for the management of STI.

Indexed as

Self CareSpecimen HandlingAdultFemaleHumansMalePatient Outcome AssessmentSexually Transmitted Diseases

Identifiers

PMID25909508
PMCPMC4409059

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.