Cited by 58Reproductive tract infections researchCervical Cancer and HPV ResearchHIV/AIDS Research and Interventions

Evaluation of self-collected versus clinician-collected swabs for the detection of Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhoeae pharyngeal infection among men who have sex with men.

Freeman, Alexandra H., Bernstein, Kyle T., Kohn, Robert P., Philip, Susan, Rauch, Leah M., Klausner, Jeffrey D.·2011·Sexually Transmitted Diseases

Abstract

In Brief We evaluated self-sampling to detect pharyngeal Chlamydia trachomatis (CT) and Neisseria gonorrhoeae (NG) infection among men who have sex with men attending a San Francisco STD clinic. The prevalence of pharyngeal NG and CT infection was 6.7% (32/480) and 1.3% (6/480), respectively. The percent agreement between self-collected and clinician-collected NG and CT specimens using nucleic acid amplification testing was 96.6% with a κ of 0.766 (95% confidence interval: 0.653–0.879) and 99.4% with a κ of 0.766 (95% confidence interval: 0.502–1.000), respectively. Acceptability was high among participants. Our study found excellent agreement between self-collected and clinician-collected specimens using nucleic acid amplification testing to detect pharyngeal Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhoeae infection among men who have sex with men attending a San Francisco STD clinic.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/olq.0b013e318227713e

Cites

25 of 25 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?

  • Self-collected swabs have been reported to be an acceptable means of collection for pharyngeal and rectal specimens, which can enhance patient comfort and reduce clinical workloads.

    “Self-collected swabs have been reported to be an acceptable means of collection for pharyngeal and rectal specimens (217–219), which can enhance patient comfort and reduce clinical workloads.”

    From Sexually Transmitted Infections Treatment Guidelines, 2021 (2021) · cites this paper as [219]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 26 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Freeman, A. H., Bernstein, K. T., Kohn, R. P., Philip, S., Rauch, L. M., & Klausner, J. D.
Affiliations
  • George Washington University (US)
  • San Francisco Department of Public Health (US)
  • University of California, San Francisco (US)
Corresponding author
  • Freeman, Alexandra H.
  • Bernstein, Kyle T.
  • Kohn, Robert P.
  • Philip, Susan
Venue
Sexually Transmitted Diseases
Published
2011-11
Volume
38
Issue
11
Pages
1036-1039
ISSN
0148-5717 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2081461223
Cited by
58
References
26
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 2
FWCI
3.25
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Sexually Transmitted Diseases (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Immunology and Microbiology › Microbiology › Reproductive tract infections research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Cervical Cancer and HPV Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Infectious Diseases › HIV/AIDS Research and Interventions
Keywords
Chlamydia trachomatis, Neisseria gonorrhoeae, pharyngeal infection, men who have sex with men, nucleic acid amplification tests, STD clinic attendees, acceptability
MeSH terms
Chlamydia Infections, Chlamydia trachomatis, Gonorrhea, Humans, Male, Neisseria gonorrhoeae, Patient Acceptance of Health Care, Pharyngeal Diseases, Pharynx, Physician's Role, San Francisco, Self Care, Specimen Handling, Prevalence, Homosexuality, Male, Nucleic Acid Amplification Techniques

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