Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28703722›Full record

ArticleSexually transmitted diseases2017

The Number of Interviews Needed to Yield New Syphilis and Human Immunodeficiency Virus Cases Among Partners of People Diagnosed With Syphilis, North Carolina, 2015.

Erika Samoff, Anna B Cope, Jason Maxwell, Francina Thomas, Victoria L Mobley

Abstract read
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 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Intersection of Syphilis and Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) Networks to Identify Opportunities to Enhance HIV Prevention.Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2022
    Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

5 authors.

Erika SamoffFrom the *North Carolina Division of Public Health Communicable Disease Branch, Raleigh, NC; and †Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Division of Sexually Transmitted Disease Prevention, Atlanta, GA.
Anna B Cope
Jason Maxwell
Francina Thomas
Victoria L Mobley

Funding

Intramural CDC HHS CC999999
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Compare syphilis investigation yield among patient groups using number needed to interview. GOAL: To increase investigation efficiency. STUDY

designRetrospective review of North Carolina 2015 syphilis investigations, using the number of cases needed to interview (NNTI) and the total number of cases and contacts needed to interview (TNTI) to compare yield of new syphilis and human immunodeficiency virus diagnoses between patient groups.

resultsWe reviewed 1646 early syphilis cases and 2181 contacts; these yielded 241 new syphilis cases (NNTI, 6.9; TNTI, 16.4) and 38 new human immunodeficiency virus cases (NNTI, 43). Interviews of women (prevalence difference [PD] = 6%, 95% confidence interval [CI], 12-16), patients <30 years old (PD = 5%, 95% CI, 1-8), and patients with titer >1:16 (PD = 5%, 95% CI, 1-9) yielded more new syphilis cases in our adjusted model; no other patient factors increased investigation yield.

conclusionsThe NNTI and TNTI are useful measures of efficiency. Prioritizing early syphilis investigation by gender, rapid plasmin reagin titer, and age provides small increases in efficiency; no other factors increased efficiency.

Indexed as

Contact TracingInterviews as TopicAdultEfficiencyFemaleHIV InfectionsHomosexuality, MaleHumansMaleNorth CarolinaPrevalenceRetrospective StudiesSexual PartnersSyphilisTransgender Persons

Identifiers

PMID28703722
PMCPMC5644378

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.