Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25922100›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2015

Public health implications of molecular point-of-care testing for chlamydia and gonorrhoea in remote primary care services in Australia: a qualitative study.

L Natoli, R J Guy, M Shephard, D Whiley, S N Tabrizi, J Ward, D G Regan, S G Badman, D A Anderson, J Kaldor and 2 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2015. 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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
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

12 authors.

L NatoliThe Kirby Institute, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia Burnet Institute, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
R J GuyThe Kirby Institute, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
M ShephardFlinders University International Centre for Point of-Care Testing, Flinders University, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
D WhileyQueensland Paediatric Infectious Diseases (QPID) Laboratory, Queensland Children's Medical Research Institute, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
S N TabriziDepartment of Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, The Royal Women's Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
J WardSouth Australian Health and Medical Research Institute, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
D G ReganThe Kirby Institute, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
S G BadmanThe Kirby Institute, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
D A AndersonBurnet Institute, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
J KaldorThe Kirby Institute, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
L MaherThe Kirby Institute, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
TTANGO investigator group

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesWith accurate molecular tests now available for diagnosis of chlamydia and gonorrhoea (Chlamydia trachomatis (CT)/Neisseria gonorrhoeae (NG)) at the point-of-care (POC), we aimed to explore the public health implications (benefits and barriers) of their integration into remote primary care in Australia.

methodsQualitative interviews were conducted with a purposively selected group of 18 key informants reflecting sexual health, primary care, remote Aboriginal health and laboratory expertise.

resultsParticipants believed that POC testing may decrease community prevalence of sexually transmitted infections (STIs), and associated morbidity by reducing the time to treatment and infectious period and expediting partner notification. Also, POC testing could improve acceptability of STI testing, increase testing coverage and result in more targeted prescribing, thereby minimising the risk of antibiotic resistance. Conversely, some felt the immediacy of diagnosis could deter certain young people from being tested. Participants also noted that POC testing may reduce the completeness of communicable disease surveillance data given the current dependence on reporting from pathology laboratories. Others expressed concern about the need to maintain and improve the flow of NG antibiotic sensitivity data, already compromised by the shift to nucleic acid-based testing. This is particularly relevant to remote areas where culture viability is problematic.

conclusionsResults indicate a high level of support from clinicians and public health practitioners for wider access to CT/NG POC tests citing potential benefits, including earlier, more accurate treatment decisions and reductions in ongoing transmission. However, the data also highlight the need for new systems to avoid adverse impact on disease surveillance. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry: ACTRN12613000808741.

Indexed as

Mass ScreeningMolecular Diagnostic TechniquesPoint-of-Care TestingPrimary Health CarePublic HealthAttitude of Health PersonnelAustraliaChlamydiaChlamydia InfectionsGonorrheaHumansNeisseria gonorrhoeaePrevalenceQualitative ResearchRural Health ServicesRural PopulationINFECTIOUS DISEASESPUBLIC HEALTHQUALITATIVE RESEARCH

Identifiers

PMID25922100
PMCPMC4420950

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.