Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31139454›Full record

SynthesisBMJ global health2019

Self-collection of samples as an additional approach to deliver testing services for sexually transmitted infections: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Yasmin Ogale, Ping Teresa Yeh, Caitlin E Kennedy, Igor Toskin, Manjulaa Narasimhan

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMJ global health, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 62 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
62citing papers in PubMed, 5 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

62 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

2 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

5 authors.

Yasmin Ogale *Department of International Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Ping Teresa Yeh *Department of International Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-7425-0382
Caitlin E KennedyDepartment of International Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Igor ToskinDepartment of Reproductive Health and Research, Organisation mondiale de la Santé, Geneve, Switzerland.
Manjulaa NarasimhanDepartment of Reproductive Health and Research, Organisation mondiale de la Santé, Geneve, Switzerland.

Funding

Synthesizing HIV Behavioral Intervention Effectiveness in Developing CountriesR01MH090173 · NIMH · MEDICAL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA · PI SWEAT, MICHAEL D · 2010 to 2019
$4.2M
NIMH NIH HHS R01 MH090173World Health Organization 001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSelf-collection of samples for diagnostic testing offers the advantages of patient autonomy, confidentiality and convenience. Despite data showing their feasibility and accuracy, there is a need to better understand how to implement such interventions for sexually transmitted infections (STIs). To support WHO guidelines on self-care interventions, we conducted a systematic review to investigate whether self-collection of samples should be made available as an additional approach to deliver STI testing services.

methodsPeer-reviewed studies were included if they compared individuals who self-collected samples for chlamydia, gonorrhoea, syphilis and/or trichomonas testing to individuals who had samples collected by clinicians on the following outcomes: uptake/frequency of STI testing, social harms/adverse events, positive yield (case finding), linkage to clinical assessment/treatment and reported sexual risk behaviour. We searched PubMed, CINAHL, LILACS and EMBASE for articles published through July 2018. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane tool for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and the Evidence Project tool for non-RCTs. Meta-analysis was conducted using random effects models to generate pooled estimates of relative risk (RR).

resultsEleven studies, including five RCTs and six observational studies with a total of 202 745 participants, met inclusion criteria. Studies were conducted in Australia, Denmark and the USA. Meta-analysis found that programmes offering self-collection of samples increased overall uptake of STI testing services (RR: 2.941, 95% CI 1.188 to 7.281) and case finding (RR: 2.166, 95% CI 1.043 to 4.498). No studies reported measuring STI testing frequency, social harms/adverse events, linkage to care or sexual risk behaviour. DISCUSSION: While greater diversity in study designs, outcomes and settings would strengthen the evidence base, findings from this review suggest that self-collection of STI samples could be an effective additional strategy to increase STI testing uptake. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: PROSPERO CRD42018114866.

Indexed as

meta-analysisself-collectionsexually transmitted infectionssti diagnosissti testing

Identifiers

PMID31139454
PMCPMC6509609

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.