ArticleJournal of primary care & community health
Chlamydia Treatment Practices and Time to Treatment in Massachusetts: Directly Observed Therapy Versus Pharmacy Prescriptions.
Article in Journal of primary care & community health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundDirectly observed therapy (DOT) is recommended for the treatment of chlamydia, however pharmacy prescriptions are frequently used. Adherence to DOT and the association between treatment method and time to treatment is unknown.
methodsWe conducted a retrospective review of a randomized 2% of laboratory-confirmed chlamydia infections reported to the Massachusetts Department of Public Health from January 1, 2019 to May 31, 2019. Clinicians and pharmacies were contacted to ascertain treatment methods and timing. We assessed frequency of DOT and pharmacy prescriptions in the treatment of chlamydia infection in Massachusetts. We used log rank test to compare time to treatment initiation for patients receiving DOT versus pharmacy prescriptions. Data were stratified according to whether treatment was empiric or laboratory-driven. KEY
resultsWe ascertained full outcomes for 199 patients. Eighty patients received DOT and 119 patients received pharmacy prescriptions. DOT was more common among those receiving empiric treatment and pharmacy prescriptions were more common among those receiving laboratory-driven treatment. The median time to treatment was 1.5 days for patients treated with DOT and 3 days for those treated with pharmacy prescriptions. For both groups, the median time to treatment for empiric therapy was 0 days and for laboratory-driven therapy was 4 days. The differences in time to treatment were not statistically significant.
conclusionsPharmacy prescriptions are frequently used for the treatment of chlamydia in Massachusetts. We did not observe a significant difference in the time to treatment between DOT and pharmacy prescriptions.
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.