ArticlePeerJ2023
A pilot study to develop assessment tools for Group A Streptococcus surveillance studies.
Article in PeerJ, 2023. 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Longitudinal surveillance of group A streptococcal pharyngitis and impetigo in remote Western Australian school children informs acute rheumatic fever prevention.PLOS global public health · 2025Article
- Housing Initiatives to Address Strep A Infections and Reduce RHD Risks in Remote Indigenous Communities in Australia.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2024Article
- Eliminate all risks: A call to reexamine the link between canine scabies and rheumatic heart disease.PLoS neglected tropical diseases · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Group A Methods: Yarning circle conversations and semi-structured interviews were performed with Aboriginal caregivers and used to develop the language and composition of a sore throat checklist. The sore throat story checklist was combined with established methods of GAS pharyngitis and impetigo surveillance (examination, bacteriological culture, rapid antigen detection and serological tests) and new technologies (photography) and used for a pilot cross-sectional surveillance study of Aboriginal children attending their health clinic for a routine appointment. Feasibility, acceptability, and study costs were compiled. Results: Ten Aboriginal caregivers participated in the sore-throat yarning circles; a checklist was derived from predominant symptoms and their common descriptors. Over two days, 21 Aboriginal children were approached for the pilot surveillance study, of whom 17 were recruited; median age was 9 years [IQR 5.5-13.5], 65% were female. One child declined throat swabbing and three declined finger pricks; all other surveillance elements were completed by each child indicating high acceptability of surveillance assessments. Mean time for screening assessment was 19 minutes per child. Transport of clinical specimens enabled gold standard microbiological and serological testing for GAS. Retrospective examination of sore throat photography concorded with assessments performed on the day. Conclusion: Yarning circle conversations were effective in deriving culturally appropriate sore throat questionnaires for GAS pharyngitis surveillance. New and established tools were feasible, practical and acceptable to participants and enable surveillance to determine the burden of superficial GAS infections in communities at high risk of RF. Surveillance of GAS pharyngitis and impetgio in remote Australia informs primary RF prevention with potential global translation.
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.