ArticleBMC infectious diseases2021
Developing and validating a risk algorithm to diagnose Neisseria gonorrhoeae and Chlamydia trachomatis in symptomatic Rwandan women.
Article in BMC infectious diseases, 2021. 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAlgorithms that bridge the gap between syndromic sexually transmitted infection (STI) management and treatment based in realistic diagnostic options and local epidemiology are urgently needed across Africa. Our objective was to develop and validate a risk algorithm for Neisseria gonorrhoeae (NG) and Chlamydia trachomatis (CT) diagnosis among symptomatic Rwandan women and to compare risk algorithm performance to the current Rwandan National Criteria for NG/CT diagnosis.
methodsThe risk algorithm was derived in a cohort (n = 468) comprised of symptomatic women in Kigali who sought free screening and treatment for sexually transmitted infections and vaginal dysbioses at our research site. We used logistic regression to derive a risk algorithm for prediction of NG/CT infection. Ten-fold cross-validation internally validated the risk algorithm. We applied the risk algorithm to an external validation cohort also comprised of symptomatic Rwandan women (n = 305). Measures of calibration, discrimination, and screening performance of our risk algorithm compared to the current Rwandan National Criteria are presented.
resultsThe prevalence of NG/CT in the derivation cohort was 34.6%. The risk algorithm included: age < =25, having no/primary education, not having full-time employment, using condoms only sometimes, not reporting genital itching, testing negative for vaginal candida, and testing positive for bacterial vaginosis. The model was well calibrated (Hosmer-Lemeshow p = 0.831). Higher risk scores were significantly associated with increased prevalence of NG/CT infection (p < 0.001). Using a cut-point score of > = 5, the risk algorithm had a sensitivity of 81%, specificity of 54%, positive predictive value (PPV) of 48%, and negative predictive value (NPV) of 85%. Internal and external validation showed similar predictive ability of the risk algorithm, which outperformed the Rwandan National Criteria. Applying the Rwandan National Criteria cutoff of > = 2 (the current cutoff) to our derivation cohort had a sensitivity of 26%, specificity of 89%, PPV of 55%, and NPV of 69%.
conclusionsThese data support use of a locally relevant, evidence-based risk algorithm to significantly reduce the number of untreated NG/CT cases in symptomatic Rwandan women. The risk algorithm could be a cost-effective way to target treatment to those at highest NG/CT risk. The algorithm could also aid in sexually transmitted infection risk and prevention communication between providers and clients.
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.