...
首页> 外文期刊>Systematic Reviews >Self-collected versus clinician-collected sampling for sexually transmitted infections: a systematic review and meta-analysis protocol
【24h】

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

机译:自我收集与临床医生收集的性传播感染抽样:系统评价和荟萃分析方案

获取原文
   

获取外文期刊封面封底 >>

       

摘要

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 Q2 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.
机译:背景技术关于自我收集的标本是否与临床医生收集的STI标本一样准确的问题,进行了3​​次荟萃分析和1次系统综述。但是,这些评论早于2007年,并未分析直肠或咽部采集部位。目前,关于哪种采样方法最能有效地诊断生殖器衣原体(CT),淋病(GC)或人乳头瘤病毒(HPV)感染尚无共识。我们的荟萃分析旨在进行全面的分析,以检查自我收集的阴道,尿液,咽部和直肠标本是否能够提供与临床医生收集的样本一样准确的临床诊断(参考标准)的证据。方法/设计纳入和排除标准:合格的研究包括随机和非随机对照试验,试验前和试验后设计以及对照观察性研究。搜索策略:将搜索的数据库包括Cochrane系统评价数据库,Web of Science,效果评价摘要数据库(DARE),EMBASE和PubMed / Medline。数据收集和分析:数据将由两名审阅者使用标准化的经过预先测试的数据抽象形式独立地进行抽象。异质性将使用Q 2 检验进行评估。如果适用,将使用随机效应荟萃分析汇总和加权具有95%置信区间以及阴性和阳性似然比的敏感性和特异性估计值。将生成用于自收集标本的分层汇总接收器操作特性曲线。讨论该合成涉及对自身收集的样本(尿液,阴道,咽和直肠拭子)与临床医师收集的样本进行荟萃分析,以诊断最流行的STIs CT,GC和HPV。我们的系统评价将使患者,临床医生和研究人员可以确定患者收集的标本与临床医生在检测衣原体,淋病和HPV中所收集的标本相比的诊断准确性。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号