ArticleBMJ open2022
Standardised protocol for a prospective cross-sectional multicentre clinical utility evaluation of two dual point-of-care tests in non-clinical settings for the screening of HIV and syphilis in men who have sex with men.
Article in BMJ open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Technological innovations and breakthrough pathways in syphilis diagnosis: addressing global resurgence and the journey toward elimination.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2026Review
- The changing epidemiology of syphilis: new strategies for new challenges in China.The Lancet regional health. Western Pacific · 2025Review
- Article
- A clinical utility evaluation of dual HIV/Syphilis point-of-care tests in non-clinical settings for screening for HIV and syphilis in men who have sex with men.BMC infectious diseases · 2024Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionPoint-of-care dual tests (POCTs) for simultaneously detecting antibodies to HIV and syphilis (dual HIV-syphilis POCTs) have been developed recently and show encouraging performance compared with the reference tests in laboratory-based studies. As community-based voluntary, counselling and testing (CBVCT) services are effective providers of HIV and syphilis testing and counselling with high acceptability among men who have sex with men (MSM), the evaluation of the utility of these dual tests in CBVCT services is a high priority. This prospective cross-sectional study will conduct a clinical utility evaluation of two dual POCTs in non-clinical settings for the screening of HIV and syphilis in MSM. This master protocol outlines the overall research approach that will be used in four countries. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: MSM presenting at CBVCT services participating in the study for HIV/STI screening will be enrolled. The (WHO preapproved) dual POCTs to be evaluated will be SD Bioline HIV/Syphilis Duo (Abbot) and Dual Path Platform HIV-Syphilis Assay (Chembio). Trained staff will collect a capillary blood sample using finger prick blood to perform both POCTs according the manufacturers' instructions. An analysis of the feasibility of introducing the dual POCT for the screening of HIV and syphilis in MSM at CBVCT services will be performed, by assessing its acceptability and usability at CBVCT service among MSM users and providers. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This core protocol was independently peer reviewed and approved by the Research Project Review Panel (RP2) of the WHO Department of Sexual and Reproductive Health and Research and by the WHO Ethics Review Committee (ERC). The protocol has been adapted to individual countries and approved by RP2, ERC and institutional review boards at each site. Results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journals and relevant conferences.
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.