ArticleThe Journal of pediatrics2017
Sensitivity and Specificity of Empiric Treatment for Sexually Transmitted Infections in a Pediatric Emergency Department.
Article in The Journal of pediatrics, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluation of an Emergency Department Sexually Transmitted Infection Empiric Treatment and Linkage-to-care Program.The western journal of emergency medicine · 2025Article
- Patient and Provider Demographics and the Management of Genitourinary Tract Infections in the Emergency Department.Emergency medicine international · 2023Article
- Ten-Year Trend in Emergency Department Visits for Sexually Transmitted Infections among Adolescents: A Retrospective Cross-Sectional Study in Italy.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Article
- Safety and Effectiveness of Same-Day Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhoeae Screening and Treatment Among Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Homeless Youth in Los Angeles, California, and New Orleans, Louisiana.Sexually transmitted diseases · 2020Article
- A Research Agenda for Emergency Medicine-based Adolescent Sexual and Reproductive Health.Academic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine · 2019Article
- Presumptive and Follow-up Treatment for Gonorrhea and Chlamydia Among Patients Attending Public Health Department Clinics in Virginia, 2016.Sexually transmitted diseases · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo determine test characteristics of provider judgment for empiric antibiotic provision to patients undergoing testing for a sexually transmitted infection. STUDY
designWe conducted a retrospective cross-sectional electronic health record review of all patients aged 13-19 years who had Neisseria gonorrhoeae (GC) and Chlamydia trachomatis (CT) testing sent from an urban, academic pediatric emergency department in 2012. We abstracted data, including patient demographics, chief complaint, sexually transmitted infection test results, and treatment. We calculated test characteristics comparing clinician judgment for presumptive treatment for a sexually transmitted infection with the reference standard of the actual results of testing for a sexually transmitted infection.
resultsOf 1223 patient visits meeting inclusion criteria, 284 (23.2%) had a positive GC and/or CT test result. Empiric treatment was provided in 615 encounters (50.3%). Provider judgment for presumptive treatment had an overall sensitivity of 67.6% (95% CI, 61.8-73.0) and a specificity of 55% (95% CI, 51.7-58.2) for accurate GC and/or CT detection.
conclusionsMany adolescents tested for GC and CT receive empiric treatment at the initial emergency department visit. Provider judgment may lack sufficient sensitivity and specificity for identifying infected patients, resulting in the potential for undertreatment of true disease, overtreatment of uninfected patients, or both.
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.