Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30587234›Full record

ArticleSystematic reviews2018

Screening for chlamydia and/or gonorrhea in primary health care: protocol for systematic review.

Jennifer Pillay, Ainsley Moore, Prinon Rahman, Gabriel Lewin, Donna Reynolds, John Riva, Guyléne Thériault, Brett Thombs, Brenda Wilson, Joan Robinson and 14 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Systematic reviews, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Recommendation on screening for chlamydia and gonorrhea in primary care for individuals not known to be at high risk.CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2021
    Guideline
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2021
    Article
  9. Interdisciplinary perspectives on infectious diseases · 2020
    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

24 authors.

Jennifer PillayAlberta Research Centre for Health Evidence, University of Alberta, 11405 87 Avenue, Edmonton, Alberta, T6G 1C9, Canada. jpillay@ualberta.ca.ORCID 0000-0001-6086-7229
Ainsley MooreDepartment of Family Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada.
Prinon RahmanGlobal Health and Guidelines Division, Public Health Agency of Canada, Edmonton, Canada.
Gabriel LewinDepartment of Family Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada.
Donna ReynoldsDepartment of Family and Community Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.
John RivaDepartment of Family Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada.
Guyléne ThériaultDepartment of Family Medicine, McGill University, Montreal, Canada.
Brett ThombsFaculty of Medicine, McGill University, Montreal, Canada.
Brenda WilsonCommunity Health and Humanities, Faculty of Medicine, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John's, Canada.
Joan RobinsonDivision of Infectious Diseases, Department of Pediatrics, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada.
Amanda RamdyalDepartment of Family Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada.
Geneviéve CadieuxOttawa Public Health, Ottawa, Canada.
Robin FeatherstoneAlberta Research Centre for Health Evidence, University of Alberta, 11405 87 Avenue, Edmonton, Alberta, T6G 1C9, Canada.
Anne N BurchellDalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.
Jo-Anne DillonDepartment of Microbiology and Immunology, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Canada.
Ameeta SinghDivision of Infectious Diseases, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada.
Tom WongPublic Health Agency of Canada, Edmonton, Canada.
Marion DoullGlobal Health and Guidelines Division, Public Health Agency of Canada, Edmonton, Canada.
Greg TraversyGlobal Health and Guidelines Division, Public Health Agency of Canada, Edmonton, Canada.
Susan CourageGlobal Health and Guidelines Division, Public Health Agency of Canada, Edmonton, Canada.
Tara MacGregorAlberta Research Centre for Health Evidence, University of Alberta, 11405 87 Avenue, Edmonton, Alberta, T6G 1C9, Canada.
Cydney JohnsonAlberta Research Centre for Health Evidence, University of Alberta, 11405 87 Avenue, Edmonton, Alberta, T6G 1C9, Canada.
Ben VandermeerAlberta Research Centre for Health Evidence, University of Alberta, 11405 87 Avenue, Edmonton, Alberta, T6G 1C9, Canada.
Lisa HartlingAlberta Research Centre for Health Evidence, University of Alberta, 11405 87 Avenue, Edmonton, Alberta, T6G 1C9, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundChlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhoeae are the most commonly reported sexually transmitted infections in Canada. Existing national guidance on screening for these infections was not based on a systematic review, and recommendations as well as implementation considerations (e.g., population groups, testing and case management) should be explicit and reflect the quality of evidence. The aim of this systematic review is to synthesize research on screening for these infections in sexually active individuals within primary care. We will also review evidence on how people weigh the relative importance of the potential outcomes from screening, rated as most important by the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care (CTFPHC) with input from patients and stakeholders.

methodsWe have developed a peer-reviewed strategy to comprehensively search MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, and PsycINFO for English and French literature published 1996 onwards. We will also search trial registries and conference proceedings, and mine references lists. Screening, study selection, risk of bias assessments, and quality of findings across studies (for each outcome) will be independently undertaken by two reviewers with consensus for final decisions. Data extraction will be conducted by one reviewer and checked by another for accuracy and completeness. The CTFPHC and content experts will provide input for decisions on study design (i.e., when and whether to include uncontrolled studies for screening effectiveness) and for interpretation of the findings. DISCUSSION: The results section of the review will include a description of all studies, results of all analyses, including planned subgroup and sensitivity analyses, and evidence profiles and summary of findings tables incorporating assessment based on Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methods to communicate our confidence in the estimates of effect. We will compare our findings to others and discuss limitations of the review and available literature. The findings will be used by the CTFPHC-supplemented by consultations with patients and stakeholders and from other sources on issues of feasibility, acceptability, costs/resources, and equity-to inform recommendations on screening to support primary health care providers in delivering preventive care. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO), registration number CRD42018100733.

Indexed as

Chlamydia InfectionsChlamydia trachomatisGonorrheaMass ScreeningNeisseria gonorrhoeaeCanadaHumansPrimary Health CareSystematic Reviews as TopicChlamydiaGonorrheaGuidelineScreeningSexually transmitted infectionsSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID30587234
PMCPMC6307186

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.