Enhanced patient referral vs simple patient referral: Re‐infection in index patient ‐ information booklet vs. simple patient referral
Enhanced patient referral showed no clear difference in re‐infection in index patient ‐ information booklet vs. simple… compared with simple patient referral (low certainty).
What each review found
Include earlier review versions| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Enhanced patient referral vs simple patient referral Re‐infection in index patient ‐ information booklet vs. simple patient referral Enhanced patient referral showed no clear difference in re‐infection in index patient ‐ information booklet vs. simple… compared with simple patient referral (low certainty). Strategies for partner notification for sexually transmitted infections, including HIV (2013) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | RR 0.55 [0.22, 1.33] | 2 studies · 942 participants | Low |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Strategies for partner notification for sexually transmitted infections, including HIV 2013 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | Not reported | list not extracted yet | Not assessed |
Studies behind the findings
None of these reviews ties its included studies to this outcome in the data here. Cochrane reviews and reviews with headline outcomes only do not list their studies yet.
How reviews are matched to this question
Reviews word the same question differently. Four decision models (TypeSafe's Jev, Liquid AI's d1-ultra, SubQ Snap and Baseten's Elephant) judged each wording of the population, intervention, comparator and outcome against the others; two wordings count as the same when at least three of them agree and none clearly disagrees, and findings count as this question only when all four elements match. Timing, setting and subgroup never split a question: they are shown on each finding.