SynthesisBMJ open2019
Primary care integration of sexual and reproductive health services for chlamydia testing across WHO-Europe: a systematic review.
Synthesis in BMJ open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- What is the effectiveness of community-based health promotion campaigns on chlamydia screening uptake in young people and what barriers and facilitators have been identified? A mixed-methods systematic review.Sexually transmitted infections · 2022Pooled it
- Key mechanisms for chlamydia control in Guangdong, China: a mixed-methods causal-loop analysis.BMC infectious diseases · 2026Article
- Policy-oriented analysis of primary health care country case studies: multi-country synthesis of 52 cases through a sexual and reproductive health and rights lens.BMC health services research · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo identify current uptake of chlamydia testing (UCT) as a sexual and reproductive health service (SRHS) integrated in primary care settings of the WHO European region, with the aim to shape policy and quality of care.
designSystematic review for studies published from January 2001 to May 2018 in any European language. DATA SOURCES: OVID Medline, EMBASE, Maternal and Infant Care and Global Health. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Published studies, which involved women or men, adolescents or adults, reporting a UCT indicator in a primary care within a WHO European region country. Study designs considered were: randomised control trials (RCTs), quasi-experimental, observational (eg, cohort, case-control, cross-sectional) and mixed-methods studies as well as case reports. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two independent reviewers screened the sources and validated the selection process. The BRIGGS Critical Appraisal Checklist for Analytical Cross-Sectional Studies, the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool 2011 and Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) checklists were considered for quality and risk of bias assessment.
results24 studies were finally included, of which 15 were cross-sectional, 4 cohort, 2 RCTs, 2 case-control studies and 1 mixed-methods study. A majority of the evidence cites the UK model, followed by the Netherlands, Denmark, Norway and Belgium only. Acceptability if offered test in primary healthcare (PHC) ranged from 55% to 81.4% in women and from 9.5% to 70.6% when both genders were reported together. Men may have a lower UCT compared with women. When both genders were reported together, the lowest acceptability was 9.5% in the Netherlands. Denmark presented the highest percentage of eligible people who tested in a PHC setting (87.3%).
conclusionsDifferent health systems may influence UCT in PHC. The regional use of a common testing rate indicator is suggested to homogenise reporting. There is very little evidence on integration of SRHS such as chlamydia testing in PHC and there are gaps between European countries.
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.