ArticleSexually transmitted infections2025
Chlamydia and gonorrhoea screening and diagnosis by anatomical site among individuals with opposite-sex partners: a rapid review.
Article in Sexually transmitted infections, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Targeted versus Universally Offered Screening in Pediatric Emergency Departments: Cost-Effectiveness.MDM policy & practiceArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesChlamydia and gonorrhoea have remained the most common nationally notifiable sexually transmitted infections (STIs) in the USA, demonstrating a need for more clarity on rates of testing and diagnosis. Behavioural changes (eg, declining condom use) may contribute to high cases, although sexual activity rates have decreased. Increased STI screening, especially among women, could also influence diagnosis rates. Research shows differences in infection rates by anatomical site (urogenital, oral, rectal) and the need for more comprehensive screening. This study aimed to explore how screening and diagnosis differ across sites in populations with exclusively opposite-sex sex partners.
methodsThis rapid review assessed the current landscape of screening and diagnosis of chlamydia and gonorrhoea in populations with opposite-sex sex partners, focusing on comparisons across anatomical sites. CENTRAL, PubMed and Embase were searched, and a risk of bias assessment was conducted to qualitatively examine potential bias across studies.
resultsA total of 25 studies from 2010 to 2023 were reviewed, focusing on chlamydia and gonorrhoea screening and diagnosis across urogenital, rectal and pharyngeal sites. Urogenital screening was most common, while pharyngeal screening was least common. Diagnosis rates varied. Median test positivity was 8.8% (women) and 2.1% (men) for rectal chlamydia, 2.9% (women) and 4.1% (men) for rectal gonorrhoea, 2.3% (women) and 1.1% (men) for pharyngeal chlamydia, and 2.6% (women) and 2.4% (men) for pharyngeal gonorrhoea. Women were more frequently screened for extragenital sites, rectal and pharyngeal diagnoses were more common in women, and urogenital diagnoses were slightly more common in men. Most studies found co-occurrence of infection at multiple sites or extragenital infection without urogenital infection.
conclusionThis review highlights the current understanding of screening and diagnosis of chlamydia and gonorrhoea among populations with exclusively opposite-sex sex partners and supports the need for increased screening, particularly of extragenital sites, to reduce transmission rates.
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.