Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28282646›Full record

ReviewSexually transmitted diseases2017

Point-of-Care Sexually Transmitted Infection Diagnostics: Proceedings of the STAR Sexually Transmitted Infection-Clinical Trial Group Programmatic Meeting.

Anthony D Cristillo, Claire C Bristow, Rosanna Peeling, Barbara Van Der Pol, Sasha Herbst de Cortina, Ivan K Dimov, Nitika Pant Pai, Dong Jin Shin, Ricky Y T Chiu, Catherine Klapperich and 3 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Sexually transmitted diseases, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed, 6 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

32 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Effect of antenatalSexually transmitted infections · 2025
    Trial
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  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

13 authors.

Anthony D CristilloFrom the *Center for Infectious Diseases Research, Social & Scientific Systems, Inc, Silver Spring, MD; †University of California San Diego School of Medicine, La Jolla, CA; ‡London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK; §University of Alabama at Birmingham School of Medicine, Birmingham, AL; ¶University of California, Los Angeles, CA; ∥Florida International University, Miami, FL; **Stanford University, Stanford, CA; ††McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, QC, Canada; ‡‡Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD; §§Boston University, Boston, MA; and ¶¶Public Health Research Institute of India, Mysore, India.
Claire C Bristow
Rosanna Peeling
Barbara Van Der Pol
Sasha Herbst de Cortina
Ivan K Dimov
Nitika Pant Pai
Dong Jin Shin
Ricky Y T Chiu
Catherine Klapperich
Purnima Madhivanan
Sheldon R Morris
Jeffrey D Klausner

Funding

Rapid molecular diagnostic for chlamydia and gonorrhea at the point-of-careR01AI113927 · NIAID · BOSTON UNIVERSITY (CHARLES RIVER CAMPUS) · PI KLAPPERICH, CATHERINE M. · 2015 to 2018
$1.4M
NIAID NIH HHS HHSN272201300011CNIAID NIH HHS HHSN272201300014CNIAID NIH HHS HHSN272201300014INIAID NIH HHS R01 AI113927
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The goal of the point-of-care (POC) sexually transmitted infection (STI) Diagnostics meeting was to review the state-of-the-art research and develop recommendations for the use of POC STI diagnostics. Experts from academia, government, nonprofit, and industry discussed POC diagnostics for STIs such as Chlamydia trachomatis, human papillomavirus, Neisseria gonorrhoeae, Trichomonas vaginalis, and Treponema pallidum. Key objectives included a review of current and emerging technologies, clinical and public health benefits, POC STI diagnostics in developing countries, regulatory considerations, and future areas of development. Key points of the meeting are as follows: (i) although some rapid point-of-care tests are affordable, sensitive, specific, easy to perform, and deliverable to those who need them for select sexually transmitted infections, implementation barriers exist at the device, patient, provider, and health system levels; (ii) further investment in research and development of point-of-care tests for sexually transmitted infections is needed, and new technologies can be used to improve diagnostic testing, test uptake, and treatment; (iii) efficient deployment of self-testing in supervised (ie, pharmacies, clinics, and so on) and/or unsupervised (ie, home, offices, and so on) settings could facilitate more screening and diagnosis that will reduce the burden of sexually transmitted infections; (iv) development of novel diagnostic technologies has outpaced the generation of guidance tools and documents issued by regulatory agencies; and (v) questions regarding quality management are emerging including the mechanism by which poor-performing diagnostics are removed from the market and quality assurance of self-testing is ensured.

Indexed as

Congresses as TopicHumansPoint-of-Care TestingPublic HealthSexually Transmitted Diseases

Identifiers

PMID28282646
PMCPMC5347466

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.