ArticleScientific reports2025
Predictive risk assessment and targeted testing could enhance STI diagnosis in a high HIV prevalence setting in Eswatini.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. 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
20 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Sexually transmitted infections (STIs) present significant public health challenges in resource-limited settings where syndromic management, which often leads to misdiagnosis and over-treatment, remains standard care. We retrospectively evaluated hypothetical STI risk assessment-only (Triage-only) and sequential risk assessment plus STI diagnostic testing (Triage&Test) approaches as potential enhancements to syndromic management in a high-burden setting. A retrospective analysis was conducted using historic data from a cross-sectional study of adults (≥ 18 years) accessing six outpatient care sites in Eswatini between July 2022 and April 2023. Clinical records included STI risk factor assessments, outcomes of syndromic assessment for vaginal discharge syndrome (VDS) and male urethritis syndrome (MUS), leukocyte esterase (LE) and HIV testing, and molecular-based testing for Chlamydia trachomatis (CT), Neisseria gonorrhoeae (NG), and Trichomonas vaginalis (TV). Sex-specific predictive risk scores (PRS) tools for CT/NG/TV infections were developed using LASSO penalized logistic regression. Subsequently, the diagnostic performance of various hypothetical Triage-only and Triage&Test approaches was compared to molecular-based testing for CT/NG/TV infections. The aim was to identify strategies meeting programmatic benchmarks of ≥ 90% sensitivity and < 60% testing efficiency. Of 1396 participant records analysed, 65.4% (n = 913) were women and the median age was 29 years (IQR 23-36). Triage-only approaches underperformed, resulting in high proportions of false-positive and false-negative cases. Specifically, VDS showed a sensitivity of only 32.9% (95% CI 27.5-38.6) and a specificity of 75.1% (95% CI 71.5-78.5), while MUS had a sensitivity of 65.0% (95% CI 57.0-72.4) and specificity of 88.0% (95% CI 84.0-91.4). All PRS tools configurations in simulated Triage&Test approaches outperformed Triage-only methods by reducing false-negative and eliminating false-positive cases, thus achieving 100% specificity and positive-predictive value. Despite these improvements, no Triage&Test approach fully met established benchmarks. The highest sensitivity, observed in men, was 91.1% (95% CI 85.5-95) with an efficiency of 86.0%. In women, the best sensitivity was 79.0% (95% CI 73.8-83.6) at an efficiency of 60.1%. While PRS tools integrated within Triage&Test approaches may improve STI diagnosis in high-burden settings, challenges in balancing accuracy and resource demands persist. Access to affordable and well-targeted point-of-care rapid diagnostic tests appears essential to improve STI care quality in resource-limited environments.
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.