ArticleSexually transmitted diseases2022
Bridging the Gap Between Pilot and Scale-Up: A Model of Antenatal Testing for Curable Sexually Transmitted Infections From Botswana.
Article in Sexually transmitted diseases, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of antenatal sexually transmitted infection screening to reduce preterm birth and low birthweight in South Africa.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2026Article
- Leveraging current capacity to address the high prevalence of Chlamydia trachomatis, Neisseria gonorrhoeae, and Trichomonas vaginalis in South Africa: Modelling potential costs and benefits of near point-of-care GeneXpert testing for STIs.PLOS global public health · 2026Article
- HIV Prevention Tools Across the Pregnancy Continuum: What Works, What Does Not, and What Can We Do Differently?Current HIV/AIDS reports · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 4 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundChlamydia trachomatis (CT) and Neisseria gonorrhoeae (NG) are common sexually transmitted infections (STIs) associated with adverse outcomes, yet most countries do not test and conduct syndromic management, which lacks sensitivity and specificity. Innovations allow for expanded STI testing; however, cost is a barrier.
methodsUsing inputs from a pilot program in Botswana, we developed a model among a hypothetical population of 50,000 pregnant women to compare 1-year costs and outcomes associated with 3 antenatal STI testing strategies: (1) point-of-care, (2) centralized laboratory, and (3) a mixed approach (point of care at high-volume sites, and hubs elsewhere), and syndromic management.
resultsSyndromic management had the lowest delivery cost but was associated with the most infections at delivery, uninfected women treated, CT/NG-related low-birth-weight infants, disability-adjusted life years, and low birth weight hospitalization costs. Point-of-care CT/NG testing would treat and cure the most infections but had the highest delivery cost. Among the testing scenarios, the mixed scenario had the most favorable cost per woman treated and cured ($534/cure). Compared with syndromic management, the mixed approach resulted in a mean incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $953 per disability-adjusted life years averted, which is cost-effective under World Health Organization's one-time per-capita gross domestic product willingness-to-pay threshold.
conclusionsAs countries consider new technologies to strengthen health services, there is an opportunity to determine how to best deploy resources. Compared with point-of-care, centralized laboratory, and syndromic management, the mixed approach offered the lowest cost per infection averted and is cost-effective if policy makers' willingness to pay is informed by the World Health Organization's gross domestic product/capita threshold.
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.