SynthesisPloS one2015
Obtaining self-samples to diagnose curable sexually transmitted infections: a systematic review of patients' experiences.
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.
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
63 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- 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
- Accuracy of self-collected versus healthcare worker collected specimens for diagnosing sexually transmitted infections in females: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis.Scientific reports · 2024Pooled it
- Self-collection of samples for group B streptococcus testing during pregnancy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC medicine · 2023Pooled it
- 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 · 2021Guideline
- Perceptions and Experiences of Internet-Based Testing for Sexually Transmitted Infections: Systematic Review and Synthesis of Qualitative Research.Journal of medical Internet research · 2020Pooled 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
- Streamlined Self-Collection Screening for Sexually Transmitted Infections and Human Papillomavirus: A Single-Group Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Clinical Trial.JAMA network open · 2026Trial
- Prevalence of five treatable sexually transmitted infections among women in Lower River region of The Gambia.BMC infectious diseases · 2023Trial
- Uptake of and factors associated with testing for sexually transmitted infections in community-based settings among youth in Zimbabwe: a mixed-methods study.The Lancet. Child & adolescent health · 2021Trial
- Acceptability and feasibility of one-stop home-based genital self-sampling for female genital schistosomiasis, human papilloma virus and self-testing for trichomonas and HIV: the Zipime Weka Schista study in Zambia.BMC women's health · 2026Article
- Comprehensive at-home sexually transmitted and blood borne infection (STBBI) testing program: A pilot study.International journal of STD & AIDS · 2026Article
- Stool and vaginal microbiome profiles patterns among Black and White endometrial cancer survivors: A pilot study in North Carolina.PloS one · 2026Article
- Sexually transmitted infections self-sampling among sexually active individuals in sub-Saharan Africa: a scoping review protocol.BMJ open · 2025Article
- Multicenter Clinical Performance Evaluation of the NeuMoDx CT/NG Assay 2.0.Sexually transmitted diseases · 2025Article
- Molecular Detection of Human Papillomavirus (HPV) and Other Sexually Transmitted Pathogens in Cervical and Self-Collected Specimens.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Article
- Young, deprived women are more at risk of testing positive for Chlamydia trachomatis: Results from a cross-sectional multicentre study in French health examination centres.Public health in practice (Oxford, England) · 2024Article
- Implementation and Evaluation of a Home-Based Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis Monitoring Option: Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Trial.JMIR research protocols · 2024Article
- The Vaginal Microbiome: Patient- versus Physician-Collected Microbial Swab: A Pilot Study.Microorganisms · 2024Article
- Nurses' perspectives on user-friendly self-sampling interventions for diagnosis of sexually transmitted infections among young women in eThekwini district municipality: a nominal group technique.BMC health services research · 2024Article
- Article
3 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.