ReviewOpen forum infectious diseases2020
Diagnostic Infectious Diseases Testing Outside Clinics: A Global Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
Review in Open forum infectious diseases, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
18 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Self-collection of samples for group B streptococcus testing during pregnancy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC medicine · 2023Pooled it
- The International Sexual Health And REproductive Health during COVID-19 (I-SHARE) Study: A Multicountry Analysis of Adults from 30 Countries Prior to and During the Initial Coronavirus Disease 2019 Wave.Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2022Pooled it
- Pay-it-forward incentives for hepatitis virus testing in men who have sex with men: a cluster randomized trial.Nature medicine · 2023Trial
- Expanding hepatitis C virus test uptake using self-testing among men who have sex with men in China: two parallel randomized controlled trials.BMC medicine · 2023Trial
- Expanding syphilis test uptake using rapid dual self-testing for syphilis and HIV among men who have sex with men in China: A multiarm randomized controlled trial.PLoS medicine · 2022Trial
- Modelling assessment of epidemiological strategies based on self-screening tools.Communications medicine · 2026Article
- Feasibility and acceptability of hepatitis C virus self-testing models among high-risk groups in Nasarawa, Nigeria; Exploratory cross-sectional analysis of an implementation study.PLOS global public health · 2026Article
- Feasibility, acceptability and preliminary effects of a social network-based, peer-led HIV self-testing intervention among men in two Ugandan fishing communities, 2022.Archives of public health = Archives belges de sante publique · 2025Article
- Under-representation of the WHO African region in clinical trials of interventions against hepatitis B virus infection.The lancet. Gastroenterology & hepatology · 2024Review
- A decade of clinical microbiology: top 10 advances in 10 years: what every infection preventionist and antimicrobial steward should know.Antimicrobial stewardship & healthcare epidemiology : ASHE · 2024Review
- Impact of voluntary testing on infectious disease epidemiology: A game theoretic approach.PloS one · 2023Article
- Article
- COVID-19 self-testing in Nigeria: Stakeholders' opinions and perspectives on its value for case detection.PloS one · 2023Article
- Are Kenyans Likely to Use COVID-19 Self-Testing Kits? Results From a Cross-Sectional Survey.International journal of public health · 2022Article
- HCV Self-Testing to Expand Testing: A Pilot Among Men Who Have Sex With Men in China.Frontiers in public health · 2022Observational
- Modern Machine-Learning Predictive Models for Diagnosing Infectious Diseases.Computational and mathematical methods in medicine · 2022Review
- Willingness of Chinese Men Who Have Sex With Men to Use Smartphone-Based Electronic Readers for HIV Self-testing: Web-Based Cross-sectional Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2021Article
- Feasibility of large-scale population testing for SARS-CoV-2 detection by self-testing at home.Scientific reports · 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
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMost people around the world do not have access to facility-based diagnostic testing, and the gap in availability of diagnostic tests is a major public health challenge. Self-testing, self-sampling, and institutional testing outside conventional clinical settings are transforming infectious disease diagnostic testing in a wide range of low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). We examined the delivery models of infectious disease diagnostic testing outside clinics to assess the impact on test uptake and linkage to care.
methodsWe conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis, searching 6 databases and including original research manuscripts comparing testing outside clinics with conventional testing. The main outcomes were test uptake and linkage to care, delivery models, and adverse outcomes. Data from studies with similar interventions and outcomes within thematic areas of interest were pooled, and the quality of evidence was assessed using GRADE. This study was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42019140828).We identified 10 386 de-duplicated citations, and 76 studies were included. Data from 18 studies were pooled in meta-analyses. Studies focused on HIV (48 studies), chlamydia (8 studies), and multiple diseases (20 studies). HIV self-testing increased test uptake compared with facility-based testing (9 studies: pooled odds ratio [OR], 2.59; 95% CI, 1.06-6.29; moderate quality). Self-sampling for sexually transmitted infections increased test uptake compared with facility-based testing (7 studies: pooled OR, 1.74; 95% CI, 0.97-3.12; moderate quality).
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.