ArticleSexually transmitted infections2019
Detection of
Article in Sexually transmitted infections, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Vaginal Swab vs Urine for Detection ofAnnals of family medicinePooled it
- Identifying the Impact ofPathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Integrated microscale immiscible phase extraction and isothermal amplification for colorimetric detection of Neisseria gonorrhoeae.Analytical and bioanalytical chemistry · 2023Article
- A profile of the binx healthExpert review of molecular diagnostics · 2021Review
- Chlamydia trachomatis in Iceland: Prevalence, Clinico-epidemiological Features and Comparison of Cobas 480 CT/NG and Aptima Combo 2 (CT/NG) for Diagnosis.Acta dermato-venereologica · 2021Article
- Current and Future Perspectives on Isothermal Nucleic Acid Amplification Technologies for Diagnosing Infections.Infection and drug resistance · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesInfections due to
methodsSensitivity and specificity were estimated compared with a patient infected status determined using two US Food and Drug Administration-cleared nucleic acid amplification tests.
resultsAmong 6004 participants, 487 CT (8.1%) and 159 NG (2.6%) infections were identified. Sensitivity estimates for CT for women ranged from 91.2% to 97.6% depending on specimen type, and the estimate for male urine specimens was 98.4%. Specificity for CT ranged from 99.2% to 99.7%. Sensitivity estimates for NG ranged from 95.6% to 100.0% for women, and the estimate for men was 100.0%. Specificity for NG ranged from 99.3% to 100.0%.
conclusionsThe cobas CT/NG v2.0 test performs well using urogenital swabs, urine and cervical samples collected in PreservCyt solution.
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.