ArticlePloS one2017
Comparing mail-in self-collected specimens sent via United States Postal Service versus clinic-collected specimens for the detection of Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhoeae in extra-genital sites.
Article in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- At-home specimen self-collection as an additional testing strategy for chlamydia and gonorrhoea: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis.BMJ global health · 2024Pooled it
- Sexually Transmitted Infections Treatment Guidelines, 2021.MMWR. Recommendations and reports : Morbidity and mortality weekly report. Recommendations and reports · 2021Guideline
- Evaluation of the Diagnostic Efficacy of Xpert CT/NG forBioMed research international · 2020Pooled it
- Meta-analysis of the Cepheid XpertSexual health · 2019Pooled it
- Efficiency of 6-month PrEP dispensing with HIV self-testing in Kenya: an open-label, randomised, non-inferiority, implementation trial.The lancet. HIV · 2022Trial
- Trial
- Lessons Learned From the Implementation of a Pilot Study on Self-collected Specimen Return by Sexual Minority Men (Project Caboodle!): Qualitative Exploration.JMIR formative research · 2023Article
- Perceptions and Experiences of Returning Self-collected Specimens for HIV, Bacterial STI and Potential PrEP Adherence Testing among Sexual Minority Men in the United States.AIDS and behavior · 2023Article
- Article
- Article
- Female sex workers in Kigali, Rwanda: a key population at risk of HIV, sexually transmitted infections, and unplanned pregnancy.International journal of STD & AIDS · 2019Article
- Article
- Study Evaluating Self-Collected Specimen Return for HIV, Bacterial STI, and Potential Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis Adherence Testing Among Sexual Minority Men in the United States.American journal of men's healthArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo evaluate the concordance between clinic-collected extra-genital specimens and self-collected mailed-in extra-genital specimens among participants seeking sexually transmitted infection testing at a free clinic in Hollywood, CA.
methodsA convenience sample of 210 men who have sex with men were enrolled between February 29, 2016 and December 21, 2016 and received mail-in testing kits for Chlamydia trachomatis (CT) and Neisseria gonorrhoeae (NG). All testing was performed using the GeneXpert® CT/NG (Cepheid, Sunnyvale, CA).
resultsFrom the 210 mail-in kits distributed, 149 mail-in kits (71.0%) were returned to the laboratory, resulting in 145 pairs (clinic-collected and mail-in) of rectal test results and 148 pairs of pharyngeal test results for both CT and NG detection. The concordance was 95.0% for all CT rectal tests, 99.3% for all CT pharyngeal tests, 95.7% for all NG rectal tests, and 97.2% for all NG pharyngeal tests.
conclusionRoughly two-thirds of mail-in test kits were returned and concordance was generally high, however more than one-third of positive results were missed in mail-in samples. The prevalence of potential false-negative results among mail-in samples warrants caution when implementing mail-in STI testing strategies.
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.