ReviewSexually transmitted diseases2020
Unnamed Partners From Syphilis Partner Services Interviews, 7 Jurisdictions.
Review in Sexually transmitted diseases, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 35 citations in OpenAlex.
- Assessing Syphilis Partner Services in Georgia (2013-2024): Effectiveness in Partner Notification and Impact on Reinfection.Sexually transmitted diseases · 2026Article
- Trends in Syphilis Partner Services Outcomes Among Women in 8 US Jurisdictions, 2015-2022.Sexually transmitted diseases · 2026Article
- A Comprehensive Approach to HIV Cluster Detection and Response: The Role of Partner Services.Sexually transmitted diseases · 2025Article
- The Impact of Monetary Compensation on Responsiveness to Ecological Momentary Assessments: A Pilot Study of Sexual Minority Men in One Midwestern City.Sexually transmitted diseases · 2025Article
- Enhancing insights in sexually transmitted infection mapping: Syphilis in Forsyth County, North Carolina, a case study.PLoS computational biology · 2024Article
- Examining changes in sexual lifestyles in Britain between 1990-2010: a latent class analysis approach.BMC public health · 2024Article
- Building a Simple Model to Assess the Impact of Case Investigation and Contact Tracing for Sexually Transmitted Diseases: Lessons From COVID-19.AJPM focus · 2024Article
- Reduced Risk of Syphilis Reinfection in Men Interviewed by Disease Intervention Specialists: A Pilot Study.AJPM focus · 2023Article
- Creating a Sexually Transmitted Infection Disease Intervention Workforce for the 21st Century.Sexually transmitted diseases · 2023Article
- Measuring Success: Disease Intervention Specialists Performance Metrics and Outcome Assessments.Sexually transmitted diseases · 2023Article
- Evaluation of Public Health Contact Tracing for Mpox Among Gay, Bisexual, and Other Men Who Have Sex With Men-10 US Jurisdictions, May 17-July 31, 2022.American journal of public health · 2023Article
- Factors Associated With Syphilis Transmission and Acquisition Among Men Who Have Sex With Men: Protocol for a Multisite Egocentric Network Study.JMIR research protocols · 2022Article
- Epidemiologically Linked COVID-19 Outbreaks at a Youth Camp and Men's Conference - Illinois, June-July 2021.MMWR. Morbidity and mortality weekly report · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors at 7 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundReducing transmission depends on the percentage of infected partners treated; if many are missed, impact on transmission will be low. Traditional partner services metrics evaluate the number of partners found and treated. We estimated the proportion of partners of syphilis patients not locatable for intervention.
methodsWe reviewed records of early syphilis cases (primary, secondary, early latent) reported in 2015 to 2017 in 7 jurisdictions (Florida, Louisiana, Michigan, North Carolina, Virginia, New York City, and San Francisco). Among interviewed syphilis patients, we determined the proportion who reported named partners (with locating information), reported unnamed partners (no locating information), and did not report partners. For patients with no reported partners, we estimated their range of unreported partners to be between one and the average number of partners for patients who reported partners.
resultsAmong 29,719 syphilis patients, 23,613 (80%) were interviewed and 18,581 (63%) reported 84,224 sex partners (average, 4.5; 20,853 [25%] named and 63,371 [75%] unnamed). An estimated 11,138 to 54,521 partners were unreported. Thus, 74,509 to 117,892 (of 95,362-138,745) partners were not reached by partner services (78%-85%). Among interviewed patients, 71% reported ≥1 unnamed partner or reported no partners; this proportion was higher for men who reported sex with men (75%) compared with men who reported sex with women only (65%) and women (44%).
conclusionsApproximately 80% of sex partners were either unnamed or unreported. Partner services may be less successful at interrupting transmission in networks for men who reported sex with men where a higher proportion of partners are unnamed or unreported.
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.