FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W912202375> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W912202375 endingPage "e0132776" @default.
• W912202375 startingPage "e0132776" @default.
• W912202375 abstract "Background The increases in STI rates since the late 1990s in Canada have occurred despite widespread primary care and targeted public health programs and in the setting of universal health care. More innovative interventions are required that would eliminate barriers to STI testing such as internet-based or mail-in home and community service testing for patients that are hard to reach, who refuse to go for clinician-based testing, or who decline an examination. Jurisdictions such as New Zealand and some American states currently use self-collected sampling, but without the required evidence to determine whether self-collected specimens are as accurate as clinician-collected specimens in terms of chlamydia and gonorrhea diagnostic accuracy. The objective of the review is to compare self-collected vaginal, urine, pharyngeal and rectal samples to our reference standard - clinician-collected cervical, urethral, pharyngeal and rectal sampling techniques to identify a positive specimen using nucleic acid amplification test assays. Methods The hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic and the fixed effect models were used to assess the accuracy of comparable specimens that were collected by patients compared to clinicians. Sensitivity and specificity estimates with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were reported as our main outcome measures. Findings We included 21 studies based on over 6100 paired samples. Fourteen included studies examined chlamydia only, 6 compared both gonorrhea and chlamydia separately in the same study, and one examined gonorrhea. The six chlamydia studies comparing self-collection by vaginal swab to a clinician-collected cervical swab had the highest sensitivity (92%, 95% CI 87-95) and specificity (98%, 95% CI 97-99), compared to other specimen-types (urine/urethra or urine/cervix). Six studies compared urine self-samples to urethra clinician-collected samples in males and produced a sensitivity of 88% (95% CI 83-93) and a specificity of 99% (95% CI 0.94-0.99). Taking into account that urine samples may be less sensitive than cervical samples, eight chlamydia studies that compared urine self-collected verses clinician-collected cervical samples had a sensitivity of 87% (95% CI 81-91) and high specificity of 99% (95% CI 0.98-1.00). For gonorrhea testing, self-collected urine samples compared to clinician-collected urethra samples in males produced a sensitivity of 92% (95% CI 83-97) and specificity of 99% (95% CI 0.98-1.00). Conclusion The sensitivity and specificity of vaginal self-collected swabs compared to swabs collected by clinicians supports the use of vaginal swab as the recommended specimen of choice in home-based screening for chlamydia and gonorrhea. Urine samples for gonorrhea collected by men had comparably high sensitivity and specificity, so could be recommended as they can be left at room temperature for several days, allowing for the possibility of mail-in home-based testing. In populations that may not go for testing at all, do not have the option of clinical testing, or who refuse a clinical examination, self-collected screening would be a good alternative. We recommend that guidelines on how to self-collect gonorrhea and chlamydia urine, vaginal, rectal and pharyngeal specimens be published." @default.
• W912202375 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W912202375 creator A5002987674 @default.
• W912202375 creator A5003715359 @default.
• W912202375 creator A5020898730 @default.
• W912202375 creator A5022439800 @default.
• W912202375 creator A5056074040 @default.
• W912202375 creator A5067152843 @default.
• W912202375 creator A5079171066 @default.
• W912202375 creator A5079746460 @default.
• W912202375 date "2015-07-13" @default.
• W912202375 modified "2023-10-11" @default.
• W912202375 title "Self-Collected versus Clinician-Collected Sampling for Chlamydia and Gonorrhea Screening: A Systemic Review and Meta-Analysis" @default.
• W912202375 cites W1528103591 @default.
• W912202375 cites W1538776929 @default.
• W912202375 cites W1940121429 @default.
• W912202375 cites W1942551484 @default.
• W912202375 cites W1977149827 @default.
• W912202375 cites W1978299230 @default.
• W912202375 cites W1981403426 @default.
• W912202375 cites W1986431465 @default.
• W912202375 cites W1988359675 @default.
• W912202375 cites W1988580632 @default.
• W912202375 cites W2009360170 @default.
• W912202375 cites W2019922928 @default.
• W912202375 cites W2021027957 @default.
• W912202375 cites W2026471996 @default.
• W912202375 cites W2029440031 @default.
• W912202375 cites W2031009063 @default.
• W912202375 cites W2031866988 @default.
• W912202375 cites W2032388085 @default.
• W912202375 cites W2040336929 @default.
• W912202375 cites W2042891164 @default.
• W912202375 cites W2044228853 @default.
• W912202375 cites W2056287204 @default.
• W912202375 cites W2057748507 @default.
• W912202375 cites W2063503031 @default.
• W912202375 cites W2073591605 @default.
• W912202375 cites W2075360603 @default.
• W912202375 cites W2076808904 @default.
• W912202375 cites W2081461223 @default.
• W912202375 cites W2087795710 @default.
• W912202375 cites W2089120642 @default.
• W912202375 cites W2099484649 @default.
• W912202375 cites W2102696978 @default.
• W912202375 cites W2107116066 @default.
• W912202375 cites W2107354873 @default.
• W912202375 cites W2109994853 @default.
• W912202375 cites W2112756031 @default.
• W912202375 cites W2114031679 @default.
• W912202375 cites W2114344993 @default.
• W912202375 cites W2115166163 @default.
• W912202375 cites W2116308061 @default.
• W912202375 cites W2117891304 @default.
• W912202375 cites W2123361742 @default.
• W912202375 cites W2126260479 @default.
• W912202375 cites W2130274858 @default.
• W912202375 cites W2131231730 @default.
• W912202375 cites W2132315937 @default.
• W912202375 cites W2134669010 @default.
• W912202375 cites W2138665933 @default.
• W912202375 cites W2141512318 @default.
• W912202375 cites W2147922084 @default.
• W912202375 cites W2151047141 @default.
• W912202375 cites W2158618601 @default.
• W912202375 cites W2160323103 @default.
• W912202375 cites W2161084401 @default.
• W912202375 cites W2165526535 @default.
• W912202375 cites W2165899877 @default.
• W912202375 cites W2166019869 @default.
• W912202375 cites W2166694634 @default.
• W912202375 cites W2167152272 @default.
• W912202375 cites W2169160087 @default.
• W912202375 cites W2328435312 @default.
• W912202375 cites W4243175802 @default.
• W912202375 cites W4302359289 @default.
• W912202375 cites W84376564 @default.
• W912202375 doi "https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0132776" @default.
• W912202375 hasPubMedCentralId "https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/4500554" @default.
• W912202375 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26168051" @default.
• W912202375 hasPublicationYear "2015" @default.
• W912202375 type Work @default.
• W912202375 sameAs 912202375 @default.
• W912202375 citedByCount "133" @default.
• W912202375 countsByYear W9122023752015 @default.
• W912202375 countsByYear W9122023752016 @default.
• W912202375 countsByYear W9122023752017 @default.
• W912202375 countsByYear W9122023752018 @default.
• W912202375 countsByYear W9122023752019 @default.
• W912202375 countsByYear W9122023752020 @default.
• W912202375 countsByYear W9122023752021 @default.
• W912202375 countsByYear W9122023752022 @default.
• W912202375 countsByYear W9122023752023 @default.
• W912202375 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W912202375 hasAuthorship W912202375A5002987674 @default.
• W912202375 hasAuthorship W912202375A5003715359 @default.
• W912202375 hasAuthorship W912202375A5020898730 @default.
• W912202375 hasAuthorship W912202375A5022439800 @default.

• next