Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorWilson, JD
dc.contributor.authorWallace, HE
dc.contributor.authorLoftus-Keeling, M
dc.contributor.authorWard, H
dc.contributor.authorDavies, B
dc.contributor.authorVargas-Palacios, A
dc.contributor.authorHulme, C
dc.contributor.authorWilcox, MH
dc.date.accessioned2020-07-31T08:53:03Z
dc.date.issued2020-09-02
dc.description.abstractBackground: Urogenital testing misses extragenital Neisseria gonorrhoeae (NG) and Chlamydia trachomatis (CT). Extragenital self-sampling is frequently undertaken despite no robust RCT evidence of efficacy. We compared clinician-taken rectal and pharyngeal samples with selftaken samples for diagnostic accuracy and cost in MSM and females. Methods: Prospective, convenience, sample in UK sexual health clinic. Randomised order of clinician and self-samples from pharynx and rectum, plus first catch urine (MSM) and vulvovaginal swabs (females), for NG/CT detection. Results: Of 1793 participants (1284 females, 509 MSM), 116 had NG detected (75 urogenital site, 83 rectum, 72 pharynx); 9.4% infected females and 67.3% MSM were urogenital negative. 276 had CT detected (217 urogenital site, 249 rectum, 63 pharynx); 13.1% infected females and 71.8% MSM were urogenital negative. Sexual history did not identify those with rectal infections. Clinician-rectal and self-rectal positive percent agreements (PPA) for NG detection were 92.8% and 97.6%; clinician-rectal, and self-rectal PPA for CT detection were 95.6% and 97.2%. There was no difference in diagnostic accuracy between clinician and self-taken samples. Clinicians performed swabs quicker than participants so costs were lower. However, in asymptomatic people, non-qualified clinicians would oversee self-swabbing and these costs would be lower than clinician’s. Conclusions: There was no difference in diagnostic accuracy of clinician compared with self-taken extragenital samples. Sexual history did not identify those with rectal infections so individuals should have extragenital clinician, or self-taken, samples. Clinician swabs cost less than self-swabs but in asymptomatic people, or doing home sampling, their costs would be lower than clinician swabs.en_GB
dc.description.sponsorshipNational Institute for Health Research (NIHR)en_GB
dc.identifier.citationPublished online 2 September 2020en_GB
dc.identifier.doi10.1093/cid/ciaa1266
dc.identifier.grantnumberPB-PG-0212-27041en_GB
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10871/122270
dc.language.isoenen_GB
dc.publisherOxford University Press (OUP) / Infectious Diseases Society of Americaen_GB
dc.rights.embargoreasonUnder embargo until 2 September 2021 in compliance with publisher policyen_GB
dc.rights© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press for the Infectious Diseases Society of America. All rights reserved. For permissions, e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.
dc.subjectNeisseria gonorrhoeaeen_GB
dc.subjectChlamydia trachomatisen_GB
dc.subjectdiagnostic techniques and proceduresen_GB
dc.subjectpositive percent agreementen_GB
dc.subjectcost-effectivenessen_GB
dc.titleSwab-yourself trial with economic monitoring and testing for infections collectively (SYSTEMATIC): Part 1. A diagnostic accuracy, and cost-effectiveness, study comparing clinician-taken versus self-taken rectal and pharyngeal samples for the diagnosis of gonorrhoea and chlamydiaen_GB
dc.typeArticleen_GB
dc.date.available2020-07-31T08:53:03Z
dc.identifier.issn1058-4838
dc.descriptionThis is the author accepted manuscript. The final version is available from Oxford University Press via the DOI in this recorden_GB
dc.identifier.journalClinical Infectious Diseasesen_GB
dc.rights.urihttp://www.rioxx.net/licenses/all-rights-reserveden_GB
dcterms.dateAccepted2020-07-01
rioxxterms.versionAMen_GB
rioxxterms.licenseref.startdate2020-07-01
rioxxterms.typeJournal Article/Reviewen_GB
refterms.dateFCD2020-07-31T08:50:42Z
refterms.versionFCDAM
refterms.panelAen_GB


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record