Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29894368›Full record

ArticleSexually transmitted diseases2018

Estimated Impact of Screening on Gonorrhea Epidemiology in the United States: Insights From a Mathematical Model.

Ashleigh R Tuite, Minttu M Rönn, Emory E Wolf, Thomas L Gift, Harrell W Chesson, Andres Berruti, Kara Galer, Nicolas A Menzies, Katherine Hsu, Joshua A Salomon

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

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 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 34% of its field
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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Comparing Strategies to Introduce Two New Antibiotics for Gonorrhea: A Modeling Study.Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. 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

10 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Ashleigh R Tuite
Minttu M Rönn
Emory E Wolf
Thomas L GiftCenters for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA.
Harrell W ChessonCenters for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA.
Andres BerrutiCenters for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA.
Kara Galer
Nicolas A Menzies
Katherine HsuMassachusetts Department of Public Health, Boston, MA.
Joshua A Salomon
Harvard University · USCenters for Disease Control and Prevention · USMassachusetts Department of Public Health · US

Funding

Intramural CDC HHS CC999999NCHHSTP CDC HHS U38 PS004644
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The burden of gonorrhea infections in the United States is high. There are marked disparities by race/ethnicity and sexual orientation. We quantified the impact of screening and treatment on gonorrhea rates in the US population aged 15 to 39 years for the period 2000 to 2015 and estimated the impact that alternative screening strategies might have had over the same period.

methodsWe developed a national-level transmission model that divides the population by race/ethnicity, preferred gender of sex partners, age, gender, and sexual activity level. We compared our fitted model ("base case") to 4 alternative strategies: (i) no screening, (ii) full adherence to current screening guidelines, (iii) annual universal screening, or (iv) enhanced screening in groups with the highest infection burden. Main outcomes were incidence, infections averted, and incidence rate ratios by race/ethnicity. Mean values and 95% credible intervals were calculated from 1000 draws from parameter posterior distributions.

resultsThe calibrated model reproduced observed trends in gonorrhea, including disparities in infection burden by race/ethnicity. We estimated that screening for gonorrhea from 2000 to 2015 averted 30% (95% credible intervals, 18-44%) of total infections that would otherwise have occurred. All alternative active screening strategies were estimated to further reduce, but not eliminate, gonorrhea infections relative to the base case, with differential impacts on the subpopulations of interest.

conclusionsOur model results suggest that screening has reduced gonorrhea incidence in the US population. Additional reductions in infection burden may have been possible over this period with increased screening, but elimination was unlikely.

Indexed as

Models, TheoreticalAdolescentAge FactorsChlamydia InfectionsEthnicityFemaleGonorrheaHumansIncidenceMaleMass ScreeningSexual BehaviorSexual PartnersYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID29894368
PMCPMC6813831
OpenAlexW2808266929

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.