Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32270240›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of public health2020

Modelling the impact of screening for chlamydia and gonorrhoea in youth and other high-prevalence groups in a resource-limited setting.

Rachel T Esra, Leigh F Johnson

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of public health, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 33% of its field
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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Rachel T EsraSchool of Public Health and Family Medicine, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa. resra@myuct.ac.za.
Leigh F JohnsonSchool of Public Health and Family Medicine, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa.
University of Cape Town · ZA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesModelling the potential impact of screening for chlamydia and gonorrhoea in youth and other populations in a resource-limited setting.

methodsWe extended an agent-based model of heterosexual chlamydia and gonorrhoea transmission in South Africa to investigate the impact of screening strategies in key populations including youth, patients in HIV care, pregnant women and female sex workers (FSWs). Additionally, we compared the modelled impact of a standardised screening programme to results obtained from other published mathematical models of chlamydia screening.

resultsAll strategies resulted in reductions in general and targeted population chlamydia and gonorrhoea transmission. Opportunistic screening of patients in youth and HIV care was shown to be the most effective, and FSW screening was shown to be the most efficient strategy. Differences between models could be attributed to differences in the modelled heterogeneity in sexual behaviour as well as differences in assumptions about immunity following chlamydia recovery.

conclusionsTaking modelling assumptions into account, opportunistic chlamydia and gonorrhoea screening of youth and those in HIV care represents a viable intervention for reducing sexually transmitted infections in the South African population.

Indexed as

Models, TheoreticalAdolescentAdultChlamydia InfectionsFemaleGonorrheaHIV InfectionsHumansMaleMass ScreeningMiddle AgedPovertyPregnancyPrevalenceSexual BehaviorSexually Transmitted DiseasesChlamydiaGonorrhoeaMathematical modelSouth AfricaSTI screening

Identifiers

PMID32270240
PMCPMC7274998
OpenAlexW3015411231

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.