ArticleSexually transmitted diseases2019
Presumptive and Follow-up Treatment for Gonorrhea and Chlamydia Among Patients Attending Public Health Department Clinics in Virginia, 2016.
Article in Sexually transmitted diseases, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluating a new partner management strategy for bacterial sexually transmitted infections after a change in 2020 in Amsterdam, the Netherlands, 2017 to 2023.Euro surveillance : bulletin Europeen sur les maladies transmissibles = European communicable disease bulletin · 2026Article
- Adolescents Accessing School-Based versus Family Planning Clinics: Chlamydia and Gonorrhea Testing and Treatment Outcomes.Biology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPresumptive antibiotic treatment is common for suspected chlamydia (CT) and gonorrhea (GC) infections before laboratory confirmation to prevent complications, reduce loss-to-follow-up, and interrupt transmission. We assessed this practice in sexually transmitted disease (STD) and family planning clinics.
methodsWe performed a retrospective analysis of data from clinics in Virginia in 2016 using administrative data merged with electronic laboratory reporting data. After stratifying by patient and clinic characteristics, we calculated how often patients with positive CT/GC tests were treated presumptively or during a follow-up visit, and how many patients with negative tests were treated presumptively.
resultsOf 63,889 patient visits with valid laboratory results from 131 clinics, 13% tested positive for CT or GC. Overall, presumptive treatment was given to 45.2% of persons with positive tests and 10.1% of persons with negative tests. Among the 9443 patients presumptively treated, 40.7% had positive test results. Presumptive treatment was more common in STD clinics compared with family planning clinics (22% vs. 4%) and for males with positive tests compared to females (65% vs. 24%); smaller variations were observed across age, race/ethnicity, and diagnosis categories. Twenty-six percent of patients with positive tests who were not treated presumptively had no treatment recorded within 30 days.
conclusionsPresumptive treatment for CT/GC was commonly used in this clinic population. It improved treatment coverage and reduced time to treatment, though some uninfected persons were treated. The impact of presumptive treatment on partner notification and treatment requires further study.
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.