ArticleSAGE open medicine2020
A survey of syphilis knowledge among medical providers and students in Rhode Island.
Article in SAGE open medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Knowledge of Syphilis and Human Papillomavirus and Associated Factors in a Japanese University Setting: A Cross-Sectional Study.Health science reports · 2026Article
- Knowledge, attitudes and practices regarding syphilis screening among muslim undergraduate students in oman: a cross-sectional study.BMC public health · 2025Article
- Implementing a 24/7 Congenital Syphilis Hotline for California Clinicians: Results From a 13-Week Pilot Project.Sexually transmitted diseases · 2025Article
- Trends in Syphilis Case Rates Among Women of Reproductive Age-United States, 2013 to 2022.Sexually transmitted diseases · 2025Article
- The Return of an Old Foe: Syphilis Among Women.Clinical obstetrics and gynecology · 2025Review
- Guidelines on Gestational and Congenital Syphilis: insights of health professionals in Bolívar (Colombia)Revista colombiana de obstetricia y ginecologia · 2023Article
- Determinants of gestational syphilis among women attending prenatal care programs in the Brazilian Amazon.Frontiers in public health · 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIn the United States, syphilis cases have increased dramatically over the last decade. Recognition and timely diagnosis by medical providers are essential to treating syphilis and preventing further transmission.
methodsFrom 2016 to 2017, a cross-sectional survey was performed among medical students, residents, fellows, and attending physicians in Rhode Island. Topics included demographics, level of medical training, experience diagnosing and treating syphilis, and familiarity with the reverse testing algorithm. Participants were asked 25 true/false questions to assess basic knowledge of syphilis, which covered five domains: epidemiology, transmission, clinical signs and symptoms, diagnosis, and treatment. Univariate and bivariate analyses were performed to determine knowledge levels across provider characteristics. Significance was defined as
resultsOf the 231 participants, 45% were medical students, 34% were residents or fellows, 11% were medicine attendings (non-infectious diseases), and 10% were infectious diseases attendings. The overall mean score was 9.79 (out of 25; range = 0-23,
conclusionOverall syphilis knowledge among non-infectious diseases medical providers was low. Improved education and clinical training are needed to promote early diagnosis, treatment, and prevention efforts.
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.