Cited by 18HIV/AIDS Research and InterventionsReproductive tract infections researchHIV, Drug Use, Sexual Risk

Bacterial sexually transmitted infection screening rates by symptomatic status among men who have sex with men in the United States: a hierarchical Bayesian analysis.

Open access
Jenness, Samuel M., Weiss, Kevin M., Prasad, Pragati, Zlotorzynska, Maria, Sanchez, Travis·2019·Sexually Transmitted Diseases

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Prevention of bacterial sexually transmitted infections (STIs) among men who have sex with men (MSM) requires timely disease detection, but this is complicated by asymptomatic infection. We estimated screening/testing rates by symptomatic status to evaluate adherence to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention STI screening guidelines. METHODS: In a cross-sectional study of 2572 US MSM aged 15 to 65 years in 2017 to 2018, we measured the reported number of asymptomatic STI screens in the past 2 years versus tests prompted by disease symptoms. Using negative binominal regression within a hierarchical Bayesian framework, we estimated yearly rates of asymptomatic screening and symptomatic testing by geographic, demographic, and behavioral factors. RESULTS: Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) status was most strongly associated with all testing/screening frequency (incidence rate ratio [IRR], 1.72; 95% credible interval [Crl], 1.49, 1.97). The HIV-uninfected MSM had 0.14 (95% credible interval [CrI], 0.12-0.17) symptomatic tests and 0.88 (95% CrI, 0.77-1.01) asymptomatic screens per year. The HIV-infected MSM had 0.25 (95% CrI, 0.18-0.35) symptomatic tests and 1.53 (95% CrI, 1.24-1.88) asymptomatic screens per year. Rates of asymptomatic screening were higher among black compared with white MSM (IRR, 1.41; 95% CrI, 1.15-1.73), but weakly associated with number of past-year sexual partners (IRR, 1.01; 95% CrI, 1.00-1.01). Overall, 85% to 90% of diagnostic events were asymptomatic screens. CONCLUSIONS: Self-reported rates of STI screening were close to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's recommended overall annual screening frequency, but with gaps defined by demographics and behavioral risk. Targeted screening efforts may be indicated specifically for younger MSM and those with multiple partners.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/olq.0000000000000896

Cites

34 of 34 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • In a cross-sectional sample of MSM in the United States, approximately one third reported not having had an STI test during the previous 3 years, and MSM with multiple sex partners reported less frequent screening.

    “In a cross-sectional sample of MSM in the United States, approximately one third reported not having had an STI test during the previous 3 years, and MSM with multiple sex partners reported less frequent screening (221).”

    From Sexually Transmitted Infections Treatment Guidelines, 2021 (2021) · cites this paper as [221]

    The Results report that 33.4% had no STI tests or screens in the previous two years, not three. They also report a 1.1% increase in asymptomatic screening frequency for each additional past-year partner; the Discussion says screening among higher-risk men was less frequent than recommended, not less frequent than among men with fewer partners. Page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [14]Gelman A, Lee D, Stan Guo J.. J Educ Behav Stat 2015; 40(5): 530– 43.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Jenness, S. M., Weiss, K. M., Prasad, P., Zlotorzynska, M., & Sanchez, T.
Affiliations
Emory University (US)
Venue
Sexually Transmitted Diseases
Published
2019-01
Volume
46
Issue
1
Pages
25-30
ISSN
  • 0148-5717 (ISSN-L)
  • 1537-4521
OpenAlex
W2884325556
Cited by
18
References
34
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 4 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 1
FWCI
1.13
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Sexually Transmitted Diseases (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institute of Mental Health (R21MH112449)
  • National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (P30AI050409)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Infectious Diseases › HIV/AIDS Research and Interventions
  • Life Sciences › Immunology and Microbiology › Microbiology › Reproductive tract infections research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › HIV, Drug Use, Sexual Risk
Keywords
bacterial sexually transmitted infections, men who have sex with men, asymptomatic screening, HIV status, sexual partners, racial disparities, targeted screening
MeSH terms
Sexual and Gender Minorities, Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Bayes Theorem, Cross-Sectional Studies, Humans, Male, Mass Screening, Middle Aged, Sexual Behavior, United States, Sexually Transmitted Diseases, Bacterial, HIV Infections, Homosexuality, Male, Young Adult, Asymptomatic Infections

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review