Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26779685›Full record

ReviewSexually transmitted diseases2016

Interventions to Improve Sexually Transmitted Disease Screening in Clinic-Based Settings.

Melanie M Taylor, Jessica Frasure-Williams, Phyllis Burnett, Ina U Park

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Sexually transmitted diseases, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
4.8field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

33 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 70 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Randomized Trial of a Sexual Health Video Intervention for Black and Hispanic Adolescent Females.Prevention science : the official journal of the Society for Prevention Research · 2023
    Trial
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Chlamydia Trachomatis/Neisseria Gonorrhea Retesting Among Adolescents and Young Adults in a Primary Care Network.The Journal of adolescent health : official publication of the Society for Adolescent Medicine · 2022
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. 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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Melanie M TaylorFrom the *Division of STD Prevention, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Atlanta, GA; †Arizona Department of Health Services, STD Program, Phoenix, AZ; ‡STD Control Branch, Division of Communicable Disease Control (DCDC), Center for Infectious Diseases (CID), California Department of Public Health (CDPH), Sacramento, CA; and §Baltimore Department of Public Health, Baltimore, MD.
Jessica Frasure-Williams
Phyllis Burnett
Ina U Park
California Department of Public Health · USCenters for Disease Control and Prevention · US

Funding

Intramural CDC HHS CC999999
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe asymptomatic nature and suboptimal screening rates of sexually transmitted diseases (STD) call for implementation of successful interventions to improve screening in community-based clinic settings with attention to cost and resources.

methodsWe used MEDLINE to systematically review comparative analyses of interventions to improve STD (chlamydia, gonorrhea, or syphilis) screening or rescreening in clinic-based settings that were published between January 2000 and January 2014. Absolute differences in the percent of the target population screened between comparison groups or relative percent increase in the number of tests or patients tested were used to score the interventions as highly effective (>20% increase) or moderately effective (5%-19% increase) in improving screening. Published cost of the interventions was described where available and, when not available, was estimated.

resultsOf the 4566 citations reviewed, 38 articles describing 42 interventions met the inclusion criteria. Of the 42 interventions, 16 (38.1%) were categorized as highly effective and 14 (33.3%) as moderately effective. Effective low-cost interventions (<$1000) included the strategic placement of specimen collection materials or automatic collection of STD specimens as part of a routine visit (7 highly effective and 1 moderately effective) and the use of electronic health records (EHRs; 3 highly effective and 4 moderately effective). Patient reminders for screening or rescreening (via text, telephone, and postcards) were highly effective (3) or moderately effective (2) and low or moderate cost (<$1001-10,000). Interventions with dedicated clinic staff to improve STD screening were highly effective (2) or moderately effective in improving STD screening (1) but high-cost ($10,001-$100,000).

conclusionsSuccessful interventions include changing clinic flow to routinely collect specimens for testing, using EHR screening reminders, and reminding patients to get screened or rescreened. These strategies can be tailored to different clinic settings to improve screening at a low cost.

Indexed as

Health PromotionMass ScreeningAmbulatory Care FacilitiesCost-Benefit AnalysisHumansPatient Acceptance of Health CarePrevalenceProgram EvaluationQuality ImprovementReferral and ConsultationSexually Transmitted Diseases

Identifiers

PMID26779685
PMCPMC6751565
OpenAlexW2436992780

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.