ArticlePloS one2020
Participation, retention, and associated factors of women in a prospective multicenter study on Chlamydia trachomatis infections (FemCure).
Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Controversies and evidence on Chlamydia testing and treatment in asymptomatic women and men who have sex with men: a narrative review.BMC infectious diseases · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Prospective studies are key study designs when attempting to unravel health mechanisms that are widely applicable. Understanding the internal validity of a prospective study is essential to judge a study's quality. Moreover, insights in possible sampling bias and the external validity of a prospective study are useful to judge the applicability of a study's findings. We evaluated participation, retention, and associated factors of women in a multicenter prospective cohort (FemCure) to understand the study's validity.Chlamydia trachomatis (CT) infected adult women, negative for HIV, syphilis, and Neisseria gonorrhoeae were eligible to be preselected and included at three sexually transmitted infection (STI) clinics in the Netherlands (2016-2017). The planned follow-up for participants was 3 months, with two weekly rectal and vaginal CT self-sampling and online questionnaires administered at home and at the clinic. We calculated the proportions of preselected, included, and retained (completed follow-up) women. Associations with non-preselection, noninclusion, and non-retention (called attrition) were assessed (logistic and Cox regression).Among the 4,916 women, 1,763 (35.9%) were preselected, of whom 560 (31.8%) were included. The study population had diverse baseline characteristics: study site, migration background, high education, and no STI history were associated with non-preselection and noninclusion. Retention was 76.3% (n = 427). Attrition was 10.71/100 person/month (95% confidence interval 9.97, 12.69) and was associated with young age and low education. In an outpatient clinical setting, it proved feasible to include and retain women in an intensive prospective cohort. External validity was limited as the study population was not representative (sampling bias), but this did not affect the internal validity. Selective attrition, however (potential selection bias), should be accounted for when interpreting the study results.
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.