4.1 Article Proceedings Paper

From the NIH: Proceedings of a workshop on the importance of self-obtained vaginal specimens for detection of sexually transmitted infections

Journal

SEXUALLY TRANSMITTED DISEASES
Volume 35, Issue 1, Pages 8-13

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/OLQ.0b013e31815d968d

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. NIAID NIH HHS [U19 AI031448, U19-AI031448, U19 AI031494, U19-AI061972, U19 AI061972, U19 AI031496, U19-AI031496, U19 AI045429, U19-AI045429, U19 AI062150, U19-AI031494, U19-AI062150] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ALLERGY AND INFECTIOUS DISEASES [U19AI061972, U19AI045429, U19AI031448, U19AI031496, U19AI062150, U19AI031494] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

Ask authors/readers for more resources

On June 27, 2006, the NIH conducted a workshop to review published data and current field practices supporting the use of self-obtained vaginal swabs (SOVs) as specimens for diagnosis of sexually transmitted infections (STIs). The workshop also explored the design of studies that could support FDA clearance of SOVs for STI testing, particularly for specimens collected in nonclinical settings including patients' homes. This report summarizes the workshop findings and recommendations. Participants concluded that self-obtained vaginal swabs are well accepted by women of all ages and that SOVs perform as well as or better than other specimen types for Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhoeae detection using transcription-mediated amplification. In addition, workshop participants recommended the validation of SOV testing by public health practitioners and manufacturers of STI diagnostic tests to expedite incorporation of SOVs as a diagnostic option in clinical and nonclinical settings for Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhoeae testing. Similarly, SOVs should be explored for use in the diagnosis of other sexually transmitted pathogens.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available