Cargando…
Screening for chlamydia and/or gonorrhea in primary health care: protocol for systematic review
BACKGROUND: Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhoeae are the most commonly reported sexually transmitted infections in Canada. Existing national guidance on screening for these infections was not based on a systematic review, and recommendations as well as implementation considerations (e.g.,...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2018
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6307186/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30587234 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13643-018-0904-5 |
_version_ | 1783382948695769088 |
---|---|
author | Pillay, Jennifer Moore, Ainsley Rahman, Prinon Lewin, Gabriel Reynolds, Donna Riva, John Thériault, Guyléne Thombs, Brett Wilson, Brenda Robinson, Joan Ramdyal, Amanda Cadieux, Geneviéve Featherstone, Robin Burchell, Anne N. Dillon, Jo-Anne Singh, Ameeta Wong, Tom Doull, Marion Traversy, Greg Courage, Susan MacGregor, Tara Johnson, Cydney Vandermeer, Ben Hartling, Lisa |
author_facet | Pillay, Jennifer Moore, Ainsley Rahman, Prinon Lewin, Gabriel Reynolds, Donna Riva, John Thériault, Guyléne Thombs, Brett Wilson, Brenda Robinson, Joan Ramdyal, Amanda Cadieux, Geneviéve Featherstone, Robin Burchell, Anne N. Dillon, Jo-Anne Singh, Ameeta Wong, Tom Doull, Marion Traversy, Greg Courage, Susan MacGregor, Tara Johnson, Cydney Vandermeer, Ben Hartling, Lisa |
author_sort | Pillay, Jennifer |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhoeae are the most commonly reported sexually transmitted infections in Canada. Existing national guidance on screening for these infections was not based on a systematic review, and recommendations as well as implementation considerations (e.g., population groups, testing and case management) should be explicit and reflect the quality of evidence. The aim of this systematic review is to synthesize research on screening for these infections in sexually active individuals within primary care. We will also review evidence on how people weigh the relative importance of the potential outcomes from screening, rated as most important by the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care (CTFPHC) with input from patients and stakeholders. METHODS: We have developed a peer-reviewed strategy to comprehensively search MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, and PsycINFO for English and French literature published 1996 onwards. We will also search trial registries and conference proceedings, and mine references lists. Screening, study selection, risk of bias assessments, and quality of findings across studies (for each outcome) will be independently undertaken by two reviewers with consensus for final decisions. Data extraction will be conducted by one reviewer and checked by another for accuracy and completeness. The CTFPHC and content experts will provide input for decisions on study design (i.e., when and whether to include uncontrolled studies for screening effectiveness) and for interpretation of the findings. DISCUSSION: The results section of the review will include a description of all studies, results of all analyses, including planned subgroup and sensitivity analyses, and evidence profiles and summary of findings tables incorporating assessment based on Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methods to communicate our confidence in the estimates of effect. We will compare our findings to others and discuss limitations of the review and available literature. The findings will be used by the CTFPHC—supplemented by consultations with patients and stakeholders and from other sources on issues of feasibility, acceptability, costs/resources, and equity―to inform recommendations on screening to support primary health care providers in delivering preventive care. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO), registration number CRD42018100733. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s13643-018-0904-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-6307186 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2018 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-63071862019-01-02 Screening for chlamydia and/or gonorrhea in primary health care: protocol for systematic review Pillay, Jennifer Moore, Ainsley Rahman, Prinon Lewin, Gabriel Reynolds, Donna Riva, John Thériault, Guyléne Thombs, Brett Wilson, Brenda Robinson, Joan Ramdyal, Amanda Cadieux, Geneviéve Featherstone, Robin Burchell, Anne N. Dillon, Jo-Anne Singh, Ameeta Wong, Tom Doull, Marion Traversy, Greg Courage, Susan MacGregor, Tara Johnson, Cydney Vandermeer, Ben Hartling, Lisa Syst Rev Protocol BACKGROUND: Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhoeae are the most commonly reported sexually transmitted infections in Canada. Existing national guidance on screening for these infections was not based on a systematic review, and recommendations as well as implementation considerations (e.g., population groups, testing and case management) should be explicit and reflect the quality of evidence. The aim of this systematic review is to synthesize research on screening for these infections in sexually active individuals within primary care. We will also review evidence on how people weigh the relative importance of the potential outcomes from screening, rated as most important by the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care (CTFPHC) with input from patients and stakeholders. METHODS: We have developed a peer-reviewed strategy to comprehensively search MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, and PsycINFO for English and French literature published 1996 onwards. We will also search trial registries and conference proceedings, and mine references lists. Screening, study selection, risk of bias assessments, and quality of findings across studies (for each outcome) will be independently undertaken by two reviewers with consensus for final decisions. Data extraction will be conducted by one reviewer and checked by another for accuracy and completeness. The CTFPHC and content experts will provide input for decisions on study design (i.e., when and whether to include uncontrolled studies for screening effectiveness) and for interpretation of the findings. DISCUSSION: The results section of the review will include a description of all studies, results of all analyses, including planned subgroup and sensitivity analyses, and evidence profiles and summary of findings tables incorporating assessment based on Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methods to communicate our confidence in the estimates of effect. We will compare our findings to others and discuss limitations of the review and available literature. The findings will be used by the CTFPHC—supplemented by consultations with patients and stakeholders and from other sources on issues of feasibility, acceptability, costs/resources, and equity―to inform recommendations on screening to support primary health care providers in delivering preventive care. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO), registration number CRD42018100733. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s13643-018-0904-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2018-12-26 /pmc/articles/PMC6307186/ /pubmed/30587234 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13643-018-0904-5 Text en © Crown. 2018 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated. |
spellingShingle | Protocol Pillay, Jennifer Moore, Ainsley Rahman, Prinon Lewin, Gabriel Reynolds, Donna Riva, John Thériault, Guyléne Thombs, Brett Wilson, Brenda Robinson, Joan Ramdyal, Amanda Cadieux, Geneviéve Featherstone, Robin Burchell, Anne N. Dillon, Jo-Anne Singh, Ameeta Wong, Tom Doull, Marion Traversy, Greg Courage, Susan MacGregor, Tara Johnson, Cydney Vandermeer, Ben Hartling, Lisa Screening for chlamydia and/or gonorrhea in primary health care: protocol for systematic review |
title | Screening for chlamydia and/or gonorrhea in primary health care: protocol for systematic review |
title_full | Screening for chlamydia and/or gonorrhea in primary health care: protocol for systematic review |
title_fullStr | Screening for chlamydia and/or gonorrhea in primary health care: protocol for systematic review |
title_full_unstemmed | Screening for chlamydia and/or gonorrhea in primary health care: protocol for systematic review |
title_short | Screening for chlamydia and/or gonorrhea in primary health care: protocol for systematic review |
title_sort | screening for chlamydia and/or gonorrhea in primary health care: protocol for systematic review |
topic | Protocol |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6307186/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30587234 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13643-018-0904-5 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT pillayjennifer screeningforchlamydiaandorgonorrheainprimaryhealthcareprotocolforsystematicreview AT mooreainsley screeningforchlamydiaandorgonorrheainprimaryhealthcareprotocolforsystematicreview AT rahmanprinon screeningforchlamydiaandorgonorrheainprimaryhealthcareprotocolforsystematicreview AT lewingabriel screeningforchlamydiaandorgonorrheainprimaryhealthcareprotocolforsystematicreview AT reynoldsdonna screeningforchlamydiaandorgonorrheainprimaryhealthcareprotocolforsystematicreview AT rivajohn screeningforchlamydiaandorgonorrheainprimaryhealthcareprotocolforsystematicreview AT theriaultguylene screeningforchlamydiaandorgonorrheainprimaryhealthcareprotocolforsystematicreview AT thombsbrett screeningforchlamydiaandorgonorrheainprimaryhealthcareprotocolforsystematicreview AT wilsonbrenda screeningforchlamydiaandorgonorrheainprimaryhealthcareprotocolforsystematicreview AT robinsonjoan screeningforchlamydiaandorgonorrheainprimaryhealthcareprotocolforsystematicreview AT ramdyalamanda screeningforchlamydiaandorgonorrheainprimaryhealthcareprotocolforsystematicreview AT cadieuxgenevieve screeningforchlamydiaandorgonorrheainprimaryhealthcareprotocolforsystematicreview AT featherstonerobin screeningforchlamydiaandorgonorrheainprimaryhealthcareprotocolforsystematicreview AT burchellannen screeningforchlamydiaandorgonorrheainprimaryhealthcareprotocolforsystematicreview AT dillonjoanne screeningforchlamydiaandorgonorrheainprimaryhealthcareprotocolforsystematicreview AT singhameeta screeningforchlamydiaandorgonorrheainprimaryhealthcareprotocolforsystematicreview AT wongtom screeningforchlamydiaandorgonorrheainprimaryhealthcareprotocolforsystematicreview AT doullmarion screeningforchlamydiaandorgonorrheainprimaryhealthcareprotocolforsystematicreview AT traversygreg screeningforchlamydiaandorgonorrheainprimaryhealthcareprotocolforsystematicreview AT couragesusan screeningforchlamydiaandorgonorrheainprimaryhealthcareprotocolforsystematicreview AT macgregortara screeningforchlamydiaandorgonorrheainprimaryhealthcareprotocolforsystematicreview AT johnsoncydney screeningforchlamydiaandorgonorrheainprimaryhealthcareprotocolforsystematicreview AT vandermeerben screeningforchlamydiaandorgonorrheainprimaryhealthcareprotocolforsystematicreview AT hartlinglisa screeningforchlamydiaandorgonorrheainprimaryhealthcareprotocolforsystematicreview |