ArticleSexually transmitted diseases2018
Comparison of Algorithms to Triage Patients to Express Care in a Sexually Transmitted Disease Clinic.
Article in Sexually transmitted diseases, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Engagement in substance use disorder treatment after an emergency department visit among persons at high risk of opioid overdose: A prediction analysis.Drug and alcohol dependence reports · 2024Article
- Accommodation-based interventions for individuals experiencing, or at risk of experiencing, homelessness.Campbell systematic reviews · 2021Review
- PROTOCOL: Accommodation-based interventions for individuals experiencing, or at risk of experiencing, homelessness.Campbell systematic reviews · 2020Article
- Improving care for sexually transmitted infections.Journal of the International AIDS Society · 2019Article
- Article
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
Abstract
backgroundThe ideal approach to triaging sexually transmitted disease (STD) clinic patients between testing-only express visits and standard visits with clinician evaluation is uncertain.
methodsIn this cross-sectional study, we used classification and regression tree analysis to develop and validate the optimal algorithm for predicting which patients need a standard visit with clinician assessment (i.e., to maximize correct triage). Using electronic medical record data, we defined patients as needing a standard visit if they reported STD symptoms, received any empiric treatment, or were diagnosed as having an infection or syndrome at the same visit. We considered 11 potential predictors for requiring medical evaluation collected via computer-assisted self-interview when constructing the optimized algorithm. We compared test characteristics of the optimized algorithm, the Public Health-Seattle and King County STD Clinic's current 13-component algorithm, and a simple 2-component algorithm including only presence of symptoms and contact to STD.
resultsFrom October 2010 to June 2015, 18,653 unique patients completed a computer-assisted self-interview. In the validation samples, the optimized, current, and simple algorithms appropriately triaged 90%, 85%, and 89% of patients, respectively. The optimized algorithm had lower sensitivity for identifying patients needing standard visits (men, 94%; women, 93%) compared with the current algorithm (men, 95%; women, 98%), as did the simple algorithm (men, 91%; women, 93%). The optimized, current, and simple algorithms triaged 31%, 23%, and 33% of patients to express visits, respectively.
conclusionsThe overall performance of the statistically optimized algorithm did not differ meaningfully from a simple 2-component algorithm. In contrast, the current algorithm had the highest sensitivity but lowest overall performance.
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.