Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36711362›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in public health2022

Determinants and prediction of

Xianglong Xu, Eric P F Chow, Christopher K Fairley, Marcus Chen, Ivette Aguirre, Jane Goller, Jane Hocking, Natalie Carvalho, Lei Zhang, Jason J Ong

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in public health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 15% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Xianglong XuDepartment of Epidemiology and Health Statistics, School of Public Health, Shanghai University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Shanghai, China.
Eric P F ChowMelbourne Sexual Health Centre, The Alfred, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Christopher K FairleyMelbourne Sexual Health Centre, The Alfred, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Marcus ChenMelbourne Sexual Health Centre, The Alfred, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Ivette AguirreMelbourne Sexual Health Centre, The Alfred, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Jane GollerCentre for Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Jane HockingCentre for Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Natalie CarvalhoCentre for Health Policy, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Lei ZhangMelbourne Sexual Health Centre, The Alfred, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Jason J OngMelbourne Sexual Health Centre, The Alfred, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
The Alfred Hospital · AUMonash University · AUThe University of Melbourne · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Methods: Our baseline data included 5,806 heterosexuals with chlamydia aged ≥18 years and 2,070 re-tested for chlamydia within 1 year of their chlamydia diagnosis at the Melbourne Sexual Health Center from January 2, 2015, to May 15, 2020. We used routinely collected electronic health record (EHR) variables and machine-learning models to predict chlamydia re-testing and re-infection events. We also used logistic regression to investigate factors associated with chlamydia re-testing and re-infection. Results: About 2,070 (36%) of 5,806 heterosexuals with chlamydia were re-tested for chlamydia within 1 year. Among those retested, 307 (15%) were re-infected. Multivariable logistic regression analysis showed that older age (≥35 years old), female, living with HIV, being a current sex worker, patient-delivered partner therapy users, and higher numbers of sex partners were associated with an increased chlamydia re-testing within 1 year. Multivariable logistic regression analysis also showed that younger age (18-24 years), male gender, and living with HIV were associated with an increased chlamydia re-infection within 1 year. The XGBoost model was the best model for predicting chlamydia re-testing and re-infection within 1 year among heterosexuals with chlamydia; however, machine learning approaches and these self-reported answers from clients did not provide a good predictive value (AUC < 60.0%). Conclusion: The low rate of chlamydia re-testing and high rate of chlamydia re-infection among heterosexuals with chlamydia highlights the need for further interventions. Better targeting of individuals more likely to be re-infected is needed to optimize the provision of PDPT and encourage the test of re-infection at 3 months.

Indexed as

Chlamydia InfectionsHIV InfectionsSexual HealthAdolescentAdultAustraliaChlamydia trachomatisFemaleHeterosexualityHumansMaleReinfectionYoung AdultChlamydia trachomatisheterosexualmachine learningpredictive modelre-infectionre-testingrisk factorsvariable importance

Identifiers

PMID36711362
PMCPMC9880158
OpenAlexW4315782591

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.