Cited by 59Syphilis Diagnosis and TreatmentReproductive tract infections researchHIV/AIDS Research and Interventions

A systematic review of epidemiologic studies assessing condom use and risk of syphilis.

Koss, Catherine A., Dunne, Eileen F., Warner, Lee·2009·Sexually Transmitted Diseases

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Although systematic reviews of epidemiologic studies have been conducted for condom use and the risk of several sexually transmitted diseases, there have been no such reviews for condom use and syphilis. METHODS: A systematic literature review of epidemiologic studies published from 1972 to 2008 was conducted to evaluate study methods and measures of association reported for condom use and risk of syphilis. RESULTS: All 12 included studies had significant methodologic limitations. Nine (75%) studies were cross-sectional. Although 11 (92%) studies assessed consistent condom use, no studies assessed correct use or condom use problems, nor did any document exposure to a partner infected with syphilis. Ten studies had insufficient information to distinguish prevalent from incident infections. Two studies that assessed both incident infection and consistent condom use suggested a reduced risk of syphilis with consistent condom use; 1 study was statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: Significant methodologic limitations exist for all reviewed studies of syphilis and condom use. Among the 2 most rigorously designed studies, both suggested a reduced risk of syphilis with consistent condom use. Additional studies incorporating rigorous methods are needed to further assess the effect of condom use on risk of syphilis.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/olq.0b013e3181a396eb

Cites

22 of 22 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Consistent and correct use of latex condoms reduces the risk for HPV infection and HPV-associated diseases, genital herpes, syphilis, and chancroid when the infected area or site of potential exposure is covered.

    “In addition, consistent and correct use of latex condoms reduces the risk for HPV infection and HPV-associated diseases, genital herpes, syphilis, and chancroid when the infected area or site of potential exposure is covered (23–27).”

    From Sexually Transmitted Infections Treatment Guidelines, 2021 (2021) · cites this paper as [27]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Koss, C. A., Dunne, E. F., & Warner, L.
Affiliations
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (US)
Corresponding author
  • Koss, Catherine A.
  • Dunne, Eileen F.
Venue
Sexually Transmitted Diseases
Published
2009-07
Volume
36
Issue
7
Pages
401-405
ISSN
0148-5717 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2002979657
Cited by
59
References
22
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 5
FWCI
0.66
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Sexually Transmitted Diseases (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Syphilis Diagnosis and Treatment
  • Life Sciences › Immunology and Microbiology › Microbiology › Reproductive tract infections research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Infectious Diseases › HIV/AIDS Research and Interventions
Keywords
condom use, syphilis, sexually transmitted infections, consistent condom use
MeSH terms
Cross-Sectional Studies, Female, Humans, Male, Syphilis, Cohort Studies, Incidence, Prevalence, Epidemiologic Studies, Case-Control Studies, Condoms

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