ArticleInternational journal of preventive medicine2017
Assessing the Need for Routine Screening for
Article in International journal of preventive medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Coinfections with multiple sexually transmitted pathogens in Republic of Korea, 2018-2020.Journal of clinical laboratory analysis · 2022Article
- Mycoplasma genitalium prevalence and macrolide resistance-associated mutations and coinfection with Chlamydia trachomatis in Southern Jutland, Denmark.APMIS : acta pathologica, microbiologica, et immunologica Scandinavica · 2021Article
- Mycoplasma genitalium Coinfection in Women With Chlamydia trachomatis Infection.Sexually transmitted diseases · 2019Article
- Chlamydia, gonorrhoea, trichomoniasis and syphilis: global prevalence and incidence estimates, 2016.Bulletin of the World Health Organization · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThere is an ongoing debate regarding possible cost and benefits, but also harm of universal screening for the emerging sexually transmitted pathogen
methodsFrom the initial pool of 8665 samples that were tested, a subset of
results
conclusionsBased on the results, routine screening is recommended only for women with one or more identified risk factors. Moreover, younger age does not represent an appropriate inclusion/exclusion criterion for
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.