Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28282653›Full record

ArticleSexually transmitted diseases2017

Comparison of In-Person Versus Telephone Interviews for Early Syphilis and Human Immunodeficiency Virus Partner Services in King County, Washington (2010-2014).

Christine L Heumann, David A Katz, Julia C Dombrowski, Amy B Bennett, Lisa E Manhart, Matthew R Golden

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article 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 11 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 25% 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. 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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Christine L HeumannFrom the *Department of Medicine, Division of Infectious Diseases, Wayne State University, Detroit, MI; †Department of Medicine, University of Washington; ‡Public Health-Seattle and King County HIV/STD Program; §Department of Medicine, Division of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, and ¶Departments of Epidemiology and Global Health, University of Washington, Seattle, WA.
David A Katz
Julia C Dombrowski
Amy B Bennett
Lisa E Manhart
Matthew R Golden
Public Health – Seattle & King County · USUniversity of Washington · USWayne State University · US

Funding

HOST DEFENSE TRAINING IN ALLERGY AND INFECTIOUS DISEASEST32AI007044 · NIAID · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI DAVID Neal FREDRICKS · 1985 to 2026
$14.6M
NIAID NIH HHS T32 AI007044
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe relative effectiveness of in-person versus telephone interviews for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)/sexually transmitted disease partner services (PS) is uncertain.

methodsWe compared outcomes of in-person versus telephone PS interviews for early syphilis (ES) and newly diagnosed HIV in King County, Washington from 2010 to 2014. We used multivariable Poisson regression to evaluate indices (number of partners per original patient [OP]) for partners named, notified, tested, diagnosed, and treated (ES only). Analyses controlled for OP age, sex, race/ethnicity, sexual orientation, time to interview, place of diagnosis, and staff performing interviews.

resultsFor ES, 682 and 646 OPs underwent in-person and telephone interviews, respectively. In-person syphilis PS were associated with higher indices of partners named (in-person index [IPI], 3.43; telephone index [TI], 2.06; adjusted relative risk [aRR], 1.68; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.55-1.82), notified (IPI, 1.70; TI, 1.13; aRR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.24-1.56), tested (IPI, 1.15; TI, 0.72; aRR, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.16-1.54), and empirically treated (IPI, 1.03; TI, 0.74; aRR, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.03-1.37), but no difference in infected partners treated (IPI, 0.28; TI, 0.24; aRR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.72-1.21). For HIV, 358 and 489 OPs underwent in-person and telephone interviews, respectively. In-person HIV PS were associated with higher indices of partners named (IPI, 1.87; TI, 1.28; aRR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.18-1.62), notified (IPI, 1.38; TI, 0.92; aRR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.03-1.50), and newly diagnosed with HIV (IPI, 0.10; TI, 0.05; aRR, 2.17; 95% CI, 1.04-4.50), but no difference in partners tested (IPI, 0.61; TI, 0.48; aRR, 1.15; 95% CI, 0.88-1.52).

conclusionsAlthough in-person syphilis PS were associated with some increased PS indices, they did not increase the treatment of infected partners. In contrast, in-person HIV PS resulted in increased HIV case finding. These data support prioritizing in-person PS for HIV and suggest that in-person PS for syphilis may not have major public health benefit.

Indexed as

Sexual PartnersAdultContact TracingFemaleHIV InfectionsHumansInterviews as TopicMaleMiddle AgedMultivariate AnalysisPoisson DistributionRegression AnalysisSyphilisWashington

Identifiers

PMID28282653
PMCPMC5347458
OpenAlexW2591030701

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.