ArticleFlorida public health review2019
Evaluation of Rapid Syphilis Testing Using the Syphilis Health Check in Florida, 2015-2016.
Article in Florida public health review, 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.
- Utilization and Performance of a Rapid Treponemal Antibody Test for Diagnosis of Syphilis in a High-Risk Population at an Urban County Hospital.Sexually transmitted diseases · 2026Article
- Advances in Syphilis Diagnostics to Address the 21st-Century Epidemic.Clinical chemistry · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The Syphilis Health Check (SHC) had low estimated specificity (91.5%) in one Florida county. We investigated use of SHC by a range of Florida publicly-funded programs between 2015 and 2016 to estimate specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), field staff acceptance, and impacts on programmatic outcomes. All reported SHC results were extracted from routinely collected program data. Field staff were surveyed about SHC's utility. Analyses investigated differences between SHC and traditional syphilis testing outcomes. Of 3,630 SHC results reported, 442 were reactive; 92 (20.8%) had prior diagnoses of syphilis; 7 (1.6%) had no further testing. Of the remaining 343; 158 (46.0%) were confirmed cases, 168 (49.0%) were considered false-positive, and 17 (5.0%) were not cases but not clearly false-positive. Estimated specificity of SHC was 95.0%. Overall, 48.5% of positives became confirmed cases (PPV). PPV varied according to prevalence of syphilis in populations tested. Staff (90%) thought SHC helped identify new cases but expressed concern regarding discordance between reactive SHC and lab-based testing. Programmatic outcomes assessment showed shorter time to treatment and increased numbers of partners tested for the SHC group; these enhanced outcomes may better mitigate the spread of syphilis compared to traditional syphilis testing alone, but more research is needed.
Identifiers
31788675PMC6884084What 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.