Cargando…

Self-collected versus clinician-collected sampling for sexually transmitted infections: a systematic review and meta-analysis protocol

BACKGROUND: Three meta-analyses and one systematic review have been conducted on the question of whether self-collected specimens are as accurate as clinician-collected specimens for STI screening. However, these reviews predate 2007 and did not analyze rectal or pharyngeal collection sites. Current...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Taylor, Darlene, Lunny, Carole, Wong, Tom, Gilbert, Mark, Li, Neville, Lester, Richard, Krajden, Mel, Hoang, Linda, Ogilvie, Gina
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2013
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3851982/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24112441
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-2-93
_version_ 1782294389800828928
author Taylor, Darlene
Lunny, Carole
Wong, Tom
Gilbert, Mark
Li, Neville
Lester, Richard
Krajden, Mel
Hoang, Linda
Ogilvie, Gina
author_facet Taylor, Darlene
Lunny, Carole
Wong, Tom
Gilbert, Mark
Li, Neville
Lester, Richard
Krajden, Mel
Hoang, Linda
Ogilvie, Gina
author_sort Taylor, Darlene
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Three meta-analyses and one systematic review have been conducted on the question of whether self-collected specimens are as accurate as clinician-collected specimens for STI screening. However, these reviews predate 2007 and did not analyze rectal or pharyngeal collection sites. Currently, there is no consensus on which sampling method is the most effective for the diagnosis of genital chlamydia (CT), gonorrhea (GC) or human papillomavirus (HPV) infection. Our meta-analysis aims to be comprehensive in that it will examine the evidence of whether self-collected vaginal, urine, pharyngeal and rectal specimens provide as accurate a clinical diagnosis as clinician-collected samples (reference standard). METHODS/DESIGN: Inclusion and exclusion criteria: Eligible studies include both randomized and non-randomized controlled trials, pre- and post-test designs, and controlled observational studies. Search strategy: The databases that will be searched include the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Web of Science, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE), EMBASE and PubMed/Medline. Data collection and analysis: Data will be abstracted independently by two reviewers using a standardized pre-tested data abstraction form. Heterogeneity will be assessed using the Q(2) test. Sensitivity and specificity estimates with 95% confidence intervals as well as negative and positive likelihood ratios will be pooled and weighted using random effects meta-analysis, if appropriate. A hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristics curve for self-collected specimens will be generated. DISCUSSION: This synthesis involves a meta-analysis of self-collected samples (urine, vaginal, pharyngeal and rectal swabs) versus clinician-collected samples for the diagnosis of CT, GC and HPV, the most prevalent STIs. Our systematic review will allow patients, clinicians and researchers to determine the diagnostic accuracy of specimens collected by patients compared to those collected by clinicians in the detection of chlamydia, gonorrhea and HPV.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3851982
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2013
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-38519822013-12-06 Self-collected versus clinician-collected sampling for sexually transmitted infections: a systematic review and meta-analysis protocol Taylor, Darlene Lunny, Carole Wong, Tom Gilbert, Mark Li, Neville Lester, Richard Krajden, Mel Hoang, Linda Ogilvie, Gina Syst Rev Protocol BACKGROUND: Three meta-analyses and one systematic review have been conducted on the question of whether self-collected specimens are as accurate as clinician-collected specimens for STI screening. However, these reviews predate 2007 and did not analyze rectal or pharyngeal collection sites. Currently, there is no consensus on which sampling method is the most effective for the diagnosis of genital chlamydia (CT), gonorrhea (GC) or human papillomavirus (HPV) infection. Our meta-analysis aims to be comprehensive in that it will examine the evidence of whether self-collected vaginal, urine, pharyngeal and rectal specimens provide as accurate a clinical diagnosis as clinician-collected samples (reference standard). METHODS/DESIGN: Inclusion and exclusion criteria: Eligible studies include both randomized and non-randomized controlled trials, pre- and post-test designs, and controlled observational studies. Search strategy: The databases that will be searched include the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Web of Science, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE), EMBASE and PubMed/Medline. Data collection and analysis: Data will be abstracted independently by two reviewers using a standardized pre-tested data abstraction form. Heterogeneity will be assessed using the Q(2) test. Sensitivity and specificity estimates with 95% confidence intervals as well as negative and positive likelihood ratios will be pooled and weighted using random effects meta-analysis, if appropriate. A hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristics curve for self-collected specimens will be generated. DISCUSSION: This synthesis involves a meta-analysis of self-collected samples (urine, vaginal, pharyngeal and rectal swabs) versus clinician-collected samples for the diagnosis of CT, GC and HPV, the most prevalent STIs. Our systematic review will allow patients, clinicians and researchers to determine the diagnostic accuracy of specimens collected by patients compared to those collected by clinicians in the detection of chlamydia, gonorrhea and HPV. BioMed Central 2013-10-10 /pmc/articles/PMC3851982/ /pubmed/24112441 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-2-93 Text en Copyright © 2013 Taylor et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Protocol
Taylor, Darlene
Lunny, Carole
Wong, Tom
Gilbert, Mark
Li, Neville
Lester, Richard
Krajden, Mel
Hoang, Linda
Ogilvie, Gina
Self-collected versus clinician-collected sampling for sexually transmitted infections: a systematic review and meta-analysis protocol
title Self-collected versus clinician-collected sampling for sexually transmitted infections: a systematic review and meta-analysis protocol
title_full Self-collected versus clinician-collected sampling for sexually transmitted infections: a systematic review and meta-analysis protocol
title_fullStr Self-collected versus clinician-collected sampling for sexually transmitted infections: a systematic review and meta-analysis protocol
title_full_unstemmed Self-collected versus clinician-collected sampling for sexually transmitted infections: a systematic review and meta-analysis protocol
title_short Self-collected versus clinician-collected sampling for sexually transmitted infections: a systematic review and meta-analysis protocol
title_sort self-collected versus clinician-collected sampling for sexually transmitted infections: a systematic review and meta-analysis protocol
topic Protocol
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3851982/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24112441
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-2-93
work_keys_str_mv AT taylordarlene selfcollectedversuscliniciancollectedsamplingforsexuallytransmittedinfectionsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysisprotocol
AT lunnycarole selfcollectedversuscliniciancollectedsamplingforsexuallytransmittedinfectionsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysisprotocol
AT wongtom selfcollectedversuscliniciancollectedsamplingforsexuallytransmittedinfectionsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysisprotocol
AT gilbertmark selfcollectedversuscliniciancollectedsamplingforsexuallytransmittedinfectionsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysisprotocol
AT lineville selfcollectedversuscliniciancollectedsamplingforsexuallytransmittedinfectionsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysisprotocol
AT lesterrichard selfcollectedversuscliniciancollectedsamplingforsexuallytransmittedinfectionsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysisprotocol
AT krajdenmel selfcollectedversuscliniciancollectedsamplingforsexuallytransmittedinfectionsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysisprotocol
AT hoanglinda selfcollectedversuscliniciancollectedsamplingforsexuallytransmittedinfectionsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysisprotocol
AT ogilviegina selfcollectedversuscliniciancollectedsamplingforsexuallytransmittedinfectionsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysisprotocol