Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25979373›Full record

Trial reportHuman reproduction (Oxford, England)2015

Clinical versus laboratory screening for sexually transmitted infections prior to insertion of intrauterine contraception among women living with HIV/AIDS: a randomized controlled trial.

Othman Kakaire, Josaphat Kayogoza Byamugisha, Nazarius Mbona Tumwesigye, Kristina Gemzell-Danielsson

Open access · bronzeAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Human reproduction (Oxford, England), 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 24% of its field
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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. U.S. Selected Practice Recommendations for Contraceptive Use, 2024.MMWR. Recommendations and reports : Morbidity and mortality weekly report. Recommendations and reports · 2024
    Guideline
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Review
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

4 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Othman KakaireDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Makerere University College of Health Sciences, Mulago Hospital Complex, PO Box 7072, Old Mulago Hill, Kampala, Uganda kakaireothman@hotmail.com.
Josaphat Kayogoza ByamugishaDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Makerere University College of Health Sciences, Mulago Hospital Complex, PO Box 7072, Old Mulago Hill, Kampala, Uganda.
Nazarius Mbona TumwesigyeSchool of Public Health, Makerere University College of Health Sciences, Mulago Hospital Complex, Old Mulago Hill, Kampala, Uganda.
Kristina Gemzell-DanielssonDepartment of Women's and Children's Health, Division of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Karolinska Institutet, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden.
Makerere University · UGKarolinska Institutet · SEMulago Hospital · UG

Funding

Medical Education for Services to All Ugandans (MESAU)R24TW008886 · FIC · MAKERERE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF HEALTH SCIENCES · PI SEWANKAMBO, NELSON K · 2010 to 2015
$9.2M
FIC NIH HHS 5R24TW008886FIC NIH HHS R24 TW008886
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

study questionDoes laboratory testing after syndromic screening for sexually transmitted infections (STIs) reduce the rate of intrauterine contraception (IUC) removal among women living with HIV/AIDS (WLHA)? SUMMARY ANSWER: Additional laboratory testing after syndromic screening for STIs did not affect the likelihood that a woman would remove an IUC immediately or within 1 year of IUC use or the frequency of post-insertion unscheduled clinic visits. In low-risk WLHA, the incidence rate of IUC removal is low with or without laboratory testing. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Fear of infectious morbidity remains an obstacle to uptake of IUC by WLHA. The value of laboratory testing after syndromic screening for STI before the insertion of IUC remains uncertain. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: We enrolled WLHA from 2 September to 6 December 2013 and followed them up to 31 December 2014. After syndromic screening, 703 women free of STIs were randomized to either additional laboratory screening or no additional screening for STI before IUC insertion. The randomization sequence was generated by an independent statistician and randomization numbers placed in opaque sequentially numbered sealed envelopes. All women randomized had an IUC inserted and in all 672 participants completed the 1-year follow-up. The study staff who followed up the participants were blinded to the study allocation groups. Incidence rate ratios (IRRs) were used to compare the incidence rates of IUC removal, unscheduled clinic attendance and IUC continuation between the two groups. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING,

methodsWomen eligible to participate were 18-49 years old at study entry, in a relationship with a male partner, wanted to avoid pregnancy for at least 1 year and were undergoing HIV/AIDS care at Mulago Hospital, Uganda. Participants completed a baseline questionnaire and up to four follow-up questionnaires until discontinuation of IUC, loss to follow-up or end of study observation after 12 months. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: The rate of IUC removal was 8.8% (29/331) in the no additional screening group and 8.0% (27/341) in the additional laboratory screening group [IRR 1.1 (95% CI 0.63-1.93)]. Unscheduled clinic attendances were similar in the two groups at 1 year of IUC insertion: 13.6% (45/331) in the no additional screening group and 12.3% (42/241) in the additional laboratory screening group. During the 1-year follow-up, only five women, three from the no additional screening group and two from the additional laboratory screening group, developed pelvic inflammatory disease (PID), as defined by established diagnostic criteria. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: We were not able to carry out STI risk assessment directly from the men thus women with high-risk partners could have been included in the study and this may be responsible for the lack of a demonstrable effect of additional laboratory screening on incidence rates of IUC removals and unscheduled clinic attendance. The diagnosis of PID was based on clinical signs and symptoms; therefore, subclinical PID could have been missed. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE

findingsAmong WLHA, the incidence rate of IUC removal is low and IUC continuation high. Syndromic screening for STIs could be sufficient in indentifying WLHA who are suitable for IUC use. However, our findings are only generalizable to women in HIV/AIDS care who have access to good follow-up. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: The study was supported by Medical Education for Equitable Services to all Ugandans, a Medical Education Partnership Initiative grant number 5R24TW008886 from the office of Global AIDS Coordinator and the US Department of Health and Human Services, Health Resources and Services Administration and National Institutes of Health. Additional funding was from the Swedish International Development Agency, Swedish Research Council (SIDA/VR). The authors have no competing interests to declare. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: This trial was registered at Pan African Clinical Trial, Registry. PACTR 201308000561212.

Indexed as

HIV InfectionsAdultDevice RemovalFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansIntrauterine DevicesPelvic Inflammatory DiseaseSexually Transmitted DiseasesSingle-Blind MethodUgandaYoung Adultacquired immunodeficiency syndromeintrauterine contraceptive deviceIUC removallaboratory screeningsexually transmitted infections

Identifiers

PMID25979373
PMCPMC4472322
OpenAlexW1840780839

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.