ArticleSexually transmitted diseases2022
Etiologies of Proctitis at a Sexual Health Clinic in Seattle, Washington From 2011 to 2021.
Article in Sexually transmitted diseases, 2022. 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.
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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
abstractWe analyzed microbiologic etiologies of proctitis among patients seen in an urban sexual health clinic during 2011 to 2021. Among 759 cases, 179 (24%) tested positive for Neisseria gonorrhoeae , 171 (23%) for Chlamydia trachomatis , 21 (3%) for herpes simplex virus, 30 (4%) for syphilis, and 73 (10%) for multiple pathogens; no pathogen was identified in 425 (56%).
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.