ArticleCanada communicable disease report = Releve des maladies transmissibles au Canada
Acceptability, feasibility, equity and resource use for prenatal screening for chlamydia and gonorrhea: A systematic review.
Article in Canada communicable disease report = Releve des maladies transmissibles au Canada. 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: A systematic review on acceptability, feasibility, equity and resource use was conducted as part of updating recommendations from the Public Health Agency of Canada on prenatal screening for Methods: Information sources, including MEDLINE® All, Embase and Cochrane CENTRAL (January 2003-January 2021) electronic databases were searched for studies that assessed acceptability, feasibility, equity and resource use of screening for CT or NG in pregnant persons aged ≥12 years. The Risk of Bias Assessment Tool for Non-Randomized Studies was used for quality assessment and a narrative synthesis was prepared. Results: Of the 1,386 records identified, nine observational studies (approximately 5,000 participants) and three economic evaluations met the inclusion criteria. In general, pregnant persons and healthcare providers accepted screening. Most pregnant persons and partners supported universal testing for CT. Pregnant persons preferred non-invasive sampling methods. Inequities in feasibility (accessibility to screening) exist in certain populations. Studies have shown that targeted screening can miss cases. Screening all pregnant persons for CT has net cost savings compared to no screening. Limitations include not identifying eligible literature on acceptability of prenatal screening for NG among partners of pregnant persons and some studies with increased risk populations that restrict the generalizability of the findings highlighting areas for future research. Conclusion: Prenatal screening for CT and NG is generally acceptable among pregnant persons and healthcare providers. Evidence has shown that targeted screening can miss cases. The findings were included when updating PHAC's recommendations on prenatal screening for CT and NG. This work was presented at the Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada's 2024 Annual Clinical and Scientific Conference in Edmonton, Alberta.
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.