作为衣原体和淋病额外检测策略的居家标本自取:系统文献综述和荟萃分析。

IF 7.1 2区 医学 Q1 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH BMJ Global Health Pub Date : 2024-08-27 DOI:10.1136/bmjgh-2024-015349
Amanda C Smith, Phoebe G Thorpe, Emily R Learner, Eboni T Galloway, Ellen N Kersh
{"title":"作为衣原体和淋病额外检测策略的居家标本自取:系统文献综述和荟萃分析。","authors":"Amanda C Smith, Phoebe G Thorpe, Emily R Learner, Eboni T Galloway, Ellen N Kersh","doi":"10.1136/bmjgh-2024-015349","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong><i>Chlamydia trachomatis</i> (Ct) and <i>Neisseria gonorrhoeae</i> (Ng) infections are often asymptomatic; screening increases early detection and prevents disease, sequelae and further spread. To increase Ct and Ng testing, several countries have implemented specimen self-collection outside a clinical setting. While specimen self-collection at home is highly acceptable to patients and as accurate as specimens collected by healthcare providers, this strategy is new or not being used in some countries. To understand how offering at home specimen self-collection will affect testing uptake, test results, diagnosis and linkage to care, when compared with collection in clinical settings, we conducted a systematic literature review and meta-analysis of peer-reviewed studies.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We searched Medline, Embase, Global Health, Cochrane Library, CINAHL (EBSCOHost), Scopus and Clinical Trials. Studies were included if they directly compared specimens self-collected at home or in other non-clinical settings to specimen collection at a healthcare facility (self or clinician) for Ct and/or Ng testing and evaluated the following outcomes: uptake in testing, linkage to care, and concordance (agreement) between the two settings for the same individuals. Risk of bias (RoB) was assessed using Cochrane Risk of Bias (RoB2) tool for randomised control trials (RCTs).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>19 studies, from 1998 to 2024, comprising 15 RCTs with a total of 62 369 participants and four concordance studies with 906 participants were included. Uptake of Ct or Ng testing was 2.61 times higher at home compared with clinical settings. There was a high concordance between specimens collected at home and in clinical settings, and linkage to care was not significantly different between the two settings (prevalence ratio 0.96 (95% CI 0.91-1.01)).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Our meta-analysis and systematic literature review show that offering self-collection of specimens at home or in other non-clinical settings could be used as an additional strategy to increase sexually transmitted infection testing in countries that have not yet widely adopted this collection method.</p>","PeriodicalId":9137,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Global Health","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":7.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11404247/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"At-home specimen self-collection as an additional testing strategy for chlamydia and gonorrhoea: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Amanda C Smith, Phoebe G Thorpe, Emily R Learner, Eboni T Galloway, Ellen N Kersh\",\"doi\":\"10.1136/bmjgh-2024-015349\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong><i>Chlamydia trachomatis</i> (Ct) and <i>Neisseria gonorrhoeae</i> (Ng) infections are often asymptomatic; screening increases early detection and prevents disease, sequelae and further spread. To increase Ct and Ng testing, several countries have implemented specimen self-collection outside a clinical setting. While specimen self-collection at home is highly acceptable to patients and as accurate as specimens collected by healthcare providers, this strategy is new or not being used in some countries. To understand how offering at home specimen self-collection will affect testing uptake, test results, diagnosis and linkage to care, when compared with collection in clinical settings, we conducted a systematic literature review and meta-analysis of peer-reviewed studies.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We searched Medline, Embase, Global Health, Cochrane Library, CINAHL (EBSCOHost), Scopus and Clinical Trials. Studies were included if they directly compared specimens self-collected at home or in other non-clinical settings to specimen collection at a healthcare facility (self or clinician) for Ct and/or Ng testing and evaluated the following outcomes: uptake in testing, linkage to care, and concordance (agreement) between the two settings for the same individuals. Risk of bias (RoB) was assessed using Cochrane Risk of Bias (RoB2) tool for randomised control trials (RCTs).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>19 studies, from 1998 to 2024, comprising 15 RCTs with a total of 62 369 participants and four concordance studies with 906 participants were included. Uptake of Ct or Ng testing was 2.61 times higher at home compared with clinical settings. There was a high concordance between specimens collected at home and in clinical settings, and linkage to care was not significantly different between the two settings (prevalence ratio 0.96 (95% CI 0.91-1.01)).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Our meta-analysis and systematic literature review show that offering self-collection of specimens at home or in other non-clinical settings could be used as an additional strategy to increase sexually transmitted infection testing in countries that have not yet widely adopted this collection method.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9137,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"BMJ Global Health\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":7.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11404247/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"BMJ Global Health\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2024-015349\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMJ Global Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2024-015349","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

导言:沙眼衣原体(Ct)和淋病奈瑟菌(Ng)感染通常没有症状;筛查可提高早期发现率,预防疾病、后遗症和进一步传播。为了增加 Ct 和 Ng 检测,一些国家已经在临床环境之外实施了标本自取。虽然患者对在家中自行采集标本的接受度很高,其准确性也不亚于医疗服务提供者采集的标本,但这一策略在一些国家尚属新生事物或尚未使用。为了了解与在临床环境中采集标本相比,在家中提供标本自助采集将如何影响检测接受率、检测结果、诊断和护理联系,我们对同行评审的研究进行了系统的文献综述和荟萃分析:我们检索了 Medline、Embase、Global Health、Cochrane Library、CINAHL (EBSCOHost)、Scopus 和 Clinical Trials。如果研究将在家中或其他非临床环境中自行采集的标本与在医疗机构(自行或临床医生)采集的标本进行直接比较,以进行 Ct 和/或 Ng 检测,并对以下结果进行评估,则纳入该研究:检测吸收率、与护理的联系以及针对相同个体的两种环境之间的一致性(一致)。采用科克伦偏倚风险(RoB2)工具对随机对照试验(RCTs)进行偏倚风险(RoB)评估:共纳入了 19 项研究,时间跨度为 1998 年至 2024 年,其中包括 15 项随机对照试验(共 62 369 人参与)和 4 项一致性研究(共 906 人参与)。与临床环境相比,在家中接受 Ct 或 Ng 检测的比例要高出 2.61 倍。在家中和临床环境中采集的标本具有很高的一致性,两种环境下的治疗联系没有显著差异(患病率比为 0.96 (95% CI 0.91-1.01)):我们的荟萃分析和系统性文献综述表明,在尚未广泛采用自我采集标本方法的国家,可将在家中或其他非临床环境中提供自我采集标本作为增加性传播感染检测的补充策略。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
At-home specimen self-collection as an additional testing strategy for chlamydia and gonorrhoea: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis.

Introduction: Chlamydia trachomatis (Ct) and Neisseria gonorrhoeae (Ng) infections are often asymptomatic; screening increases early detection and prevents disease, sequelae and further spread. To increase Ct and Ng testing, several countries have implemented specimen self-collection outside a clinical setting. While specimen self-collection at home is highly acceptable to patients and as accurate as specimens collected by healthcare providers, this strategy is new or not being used in some countries. To understand how offering at home specimen self-collection will affect testing uptake, test results, diagnosis and linkage to care, when compared with collection in clinical settings, we conducted a systematic literature review and meta-analysis of peer-reviewed studies.

Methods: We searched Medline, Embase, Global Health, Cochrane Library, CINAHL (EBSCOHost), Scopus and Clinical Trials. Studies were included if they directly compared specimens self-collected at home or in other non-clinical settings to specimen collection at a healthcare facility (self or clinician) for Ct and/or Ng testing and evaluated the following outcomes: uptake in testing, linkage to care, and concordance (agreement) between the two settings for the same individuals. Risk of bias (RoB) was assessed using Cochrane Risk of Bias (RoB2) tool for randomised control trials (RCTs).

Results: 19 studies, from 1998 to 2024, comprising 15 RCTs with a total of 62 369 participants and four concordance studies with 906 participants were included. Uptake of Ct or Ng testing was 2.61 times higher at home compared with clinical settings. There was a high concordance between specimens collected at home and in clinical settings, and linkage to care was not significantly different between the two settings (prevalence ratio 0.96 (95% CI 0.91-1.01)).

Conclusion: Our meta-analysis and systematic literature review show that offering self-collection of specimens at home or in other non-clinical settings could be used as an additional strategy to increase sexually transmitted infection testing in countries that have not yet widely adopted this collection method.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
BMJ Global Health
BMJ Global Health Medicine-Health Policy
CiteScore
11.40
自引率
4.90%
发文量
429
审稿时长
18 weeks
期刊介绍: BMJ Global Health is an online Open Access journal from BMJ that focuses on publishing high-quality peer-reviewed content pertinent to individuals engaged in global health, including policy makers, funders, researchers, clinicians, and frontline healthcare workers. The journal encompasses all facets of global health, with a special emphasis on submissions addressing underfunded areas such as non-communicable diseases (NCDs). It welcomes research across all study phases and designs, from study protocols to phase I trials to meta-analyses, including small or specialized studies. The journal also encourages opinionated discussions on controversial topics.
期刊最新文献
The impact of a multi-faceted intervention on non-prescription dispensing of antibiotics by urban community pharmacies in Indonesia: a mixed methods evaluation. Water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH): the evolution of a global health and development sector. Cost-effectiveness of surgical interventions in low-income and middle-income countries: a systematic review and critical analysis of recent evidence. Learning from the Montreal Protocol to improve the global governance of antimicrobial resistance. Leveraging investments, promoting transparency and mobilising communities: a qualitative analysis of news articles about how the Ebola outbreak informed COVID-19 response in five African countries.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1