ArticleSexually transmitted diseases2016
Increased Gonorrhea Screening and Case Finding After Implementation of Expanded Screening Criteria-Urban Indian Health Service Facility in Phoenix, Arizona, 2011-2013.
Article 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 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Creating a path forward: understanding the context of sexual health and sexually transmitted infections in American Indian/Alaska Native populations – a review.Sexual health · 2022Review
- Electronic Health Record Reminders for Chlamydia Screening in an American Indian Population.Public health reports (Washington, D.C. : 1974) · 2021Article
- Protecting our future generation: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial evaluating a sexual health self-care intervention with Native American youth and young adults.BMC public health · 2019Article
- Community-Directed Bacterial Sexually Transmitted Infection Testing Interventions Among Men Who Have Sex With Men: Protocol for an E-Delphi Study in Toronto, Canada.JMIR research protocols · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundGonorrhea screening is recommended for women at risk and men who have sex with men; expanded screening is encouraged based on local epidemiology. In response to a substantial increase in gonorrhea cases at an urban medical center serving American Indians, gonorrhea screening of all sexually active patients aged 14 to 45 years was initiated in March 2013. We describe gonorrhea screening coverage and case finding before and after implementation of expanded screening.
methodsIn March 2013, provider training, electronic health record prompts, and bundled laboratory orders were implemented to facilitate gonorrhea screening of all sexually active patients aged 14 to 45 years. We assessed the proportions of patients screened and testing positive for gonorrhea in the 2 years before (March 2011-February 2012 [indicated as 2011], March 2012-February 2013 [2012]) and 1 year after (March 2013-February 2014 [2013]) expanded screening measures.
resultsGonorrhea screening coverage increased from 22% (2012) to 38% (2013); coverage increased 50% among females and 202% among males. Screening coverage increased in nearly all clinics. Gonorrhea case finding increased 68% among females in 2013 (n = 104) compared with 2012 (n = 62), primarily among women aged 25 to 29 years. No corresponding increase in gonorrhea case finding occurred among males. Most increased case finding occurred in the emergency department.
conclusionsAfter introduction of expanded gonorrhea screening, there was a significant increase in gonorrhea screening coverage and a subsequent increase in gonorrhea case finding among females. Despite increased screening in all clinics, increased case finding only occurred in the emergency department.
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.