Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32877521›Full record

Trial reportClinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America2021

Swab-yourself Trial With Economic Monitoring and Testing for Infections Collectively (SYSTEMATIC): Part 1. A Diagnostic Accuracy and Cost-effectiveness Study Comparing Clinician-taken vs Self-taken Rectal and Pharyngeal Samples for the Diagnosis of Gonorrhea and Chlamydia.

Janet D Wilson, Harriet E Wallace, Michelle Loftus-Keeling, Helen Ward, Bethan Davies, Armando Vargas-Palacios, Claire Hulme, Mark H Wilcox

Registry-linked trialOpen access · bronzeAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02371109 (SYSTEMATIC), which is not on this map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 20% 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.

NCT02371109 completednot on this map

SYSTEMATIC: NAATS of Pooled Selftaken Versus Clinicantaken Swabs 1

TypeobservationalSponsorThe Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS TrustRan2014 to 2017Enrolled1,786ConditionsInfectionArmsselftaken versus clinically taken swabs
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Patients May Accurately Self-collect Pharyngeal and Rectal Specimens for Neisseria gonorrhoeae and Chlamydia trachomatis Infection: But Is There Benefit?Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2021
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Janet D WilsonLeeds Sexual Health, Leeds Teaching Hospitals National Health Service Trust, Leeds, United Kingdom.
Harriet E WallaceLeeds Sexual Health, Leeds Teaching Hospitals National Health Service Trust, Leeds, United Kingdom.
Michelle Loftus-KeelingLeeds Sexual Health, Leeds Teaching Hospitals National Health Service Trust, Leeds, United Kingdom.
Helen WardDepartment of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, Imperial College, London, United Kingdom.
Bethan DaviesDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Imperial College, London, United Kingdom.
Armando Vargas-PalaciosAcademic Unit of Health Economics, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom.
Claire HulmeAcademic Unit of Health Economics, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom.
Mark H WilcoxDepartment of Clinical Microbiology, Leeds Teaching Hospitals National Health Service Trust, Leeds, United Kingdom.
National Health Service · GBImperial College London · GBUniversity of Leeds · GB

Funding

Department of Health PB-PG-0212-27041NIHR Research for Patient Benefit Programme PB-PG-0212-27041
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundUrogenital testing misses extragenital Neisseria gonorrhoeae (NG) and Chlamydia trachomatis (CT). Extragenital self-sampling is frequently undertaken despite no robust randomized, controlled trial evidence of efficacy. We compared clinician-taken rectal and pharyngeal samples with self-taken samples for diagnostic accuracy and cost in men who have sex with men (MSM) and in females.

methodsThis was a prospective convenience sample from a UK sexual health clinic. We randomized the order of clinician- and self-taken samples from the pharynx and rectum, plus first catch urine (MSM) and vulvovaginal swabs (females), for NG/CT detection.

resultsOf 1793 participants (1284 females, 509 MSM), 116 had NG detected (75 urogenital, 83 rectum, 72 pharynx); 9.4% infected females and 67.3% MSM were urogenital-negative. A total of 276 had CT detected (217 urogenital, 249 rectum, 63 pharynx); 13.1% infected females and 71.8% MSM were urogenital-negative. Sexual history did not identify those with rectal infections. There was no difference in diagnostic accuracy between clinician- and self-taken samples from the rectum or pharynx. Clinicians took swabs more quickly than participants, so costs were lower. However, in asymptomatic people, nonqualified clinicians would oversee self-swabbing making these costs lower.

conclusionsThere was no difference in the diagnostic accuracy of clinician-taken compared with self-taken extragenital samples. Sexual history did not identify those with rectal infections, so individuals should have extragenital clinician- or self-taken samples. Clinician-taken swabs cost less than self-taken swabs; however, in asymptomatic people or those who perform home testing, the costs would be lower than for clinician-taken swabs. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT02371109.

Indexed as

Chlamydia InfectionsGonorrheaSexual and Gender MinoritiesChlamydia trachomatisCost-Benefit AnalysisFemaleHomosexuality, MaleHumansMaleNeisseria gonorrhoeaePharynxProspective StudiesRectumChlamydia trachomatiscost-effectivenessdiagnostic techniques and proceduresNeisseria gonorrhoeaepositive percent agreement

Identifiers

PMID32877521
OpenAlexW3047213551

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.