ArticleEpidemiology and infection2017
Estimating gonorrhoea prevalence in young heterosexual men and women attending community-based sexual health services to inform decisions on gonorrhoea testing.
Article in Epidemiology and infection, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In England, dual tests detecting chlamydia and gonorrhoea are used in specialist and community-based sexual health services (SHSs). Test performance is poor when prevalence is low, therefore UK national guidelines recommend against opportunistic gonorrhoea screening unless there is a clear local public health need. While surveillance data on gonorrhoea prevalence is comprehensive in specialist SHSs, it is sparse in community SHSs. We aimed to estimate gonorrhoea prevalence in heterosexual men and women aged 15-24 attending community SHSs to inform testing care pathways. We used linear and quadratic regression to model the relationship between prevalence in community and specialist SHSs in local authorities (LAs) with available surveillance data. We applied best-fitting models to predict prevalence in community SHSs in remaining LAs. Data from community SHSs were available for 102/326 LAs. There was a weak positive association between gonorrhoea prevalence in community and specialist SHSs in corresponding LAs within (R 2 = 0·13, P = 0·058) and outside (R 2 = 0·07, P = 0·02) London. Applying best-fitting models, we estimated a median gonorrhoea prevalence of 0·5% (mean 0·6%; range 0·2%-2·7%) in heterosexuals attending community SHSs. Despite some unexplained variation, our analyses suggest gonorrhoea prevalence in young heterosexuals attending community SHSs is below 1% in most English LAs. Our findings re-inforce the current national guidelines that recommend care pathways for gonorrhoea testing in community SHSs include confirmatory testing to reduce the risk of misdiagnosis and inappropriate management.
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.