期刊
SEXUALLY TRANSMITTED DISEASES
卷 39, 期 2, 页码 136-146出版社
LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/OLQ.0b013e31823ed4ec
关键词
-
Background: Repeat infection with Chlamydia trachomatis following treatment is common and increases the risk of sequelae. Despite clinical guidelines recommending rescreening within 3 months of treatment, rescreening rates remain low. We undertook a systematic review to identify studies that compared rates of rescreening for repeat chlamydial infection between patients receiving and not receiving an intervention. Methods: We searched Medline, EMBASE, and conference Web sites from 2000 to September 2010 using variations of the terms chlamydia and rescreening and intervention. We used meta-analysis to calculate the overall relative risk (RR) effect on rescreening rates by study design and strategy type. Results: We identified 8 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 4 controlled observational studies, all conducted in the United States. Four RCTs assessed mailed screening kits +/- reminders, with an average effect estimate of 1.30 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.01-1.50); 2 RCTs assessed motivational interviewing +/- reminders with a summary effect of 2.15 (95% CI: 0.92-3.37); one RCT evaluated the effect of reminders with a RR of 9.67 (95% CI: 1.31-71.31), and another RCT assessed the effect of a $20 patient incentive with a RR of 1.16 (95% CI: 0.62-2.17). Three controlled observational studies assessed reminder strategies with RRs of 1.97 (95% CI: 1.76-2.21), 1.01 (95% CI: 0.66-1.55), and 1.88 (95% CI: 1.58-2.24)-a summary effect was not calculated due to significant heterogeneity; and one controlled observational study assessed the promotion of clinical guidelines with a RR of 1.35 (95% CI: 0.96-1.90). Conclusion: The review suggests that the use of mailed screening kits is an important strategy to increase rescreening, reminder systems are promising, and motivational interviewing is worth investigation.
作者
我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。
推荐
暂无数据