Cochrane · systematic review · CD002843
Strategies for partner notification for sexually transmitted infections, including HIV
Ferreira, A, Young, T, Mathews, C, et al. · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2013 · Cochrane Library
Sexually Transmitted InfectionsAMSTAR 2: not assessed
SoF tableOnly the outcomes this review put in its Summary of Findings table are listed (the Cochrane Handbook caps them at about seven per comparison). Its other analyses are not shown here.
Questions
11
current version
GRADE rated
11
No studies
0
Included studies
NR
No studies 0 · 0%Ungraded 0 · 0%Very low 0 · 0%Low 8 · 72.7%Moderate 3 · 27.3%High 0 · 0%
Ungraded means an effect was reported without a GRADE rating; it is not a gap. No studies means the review found nothing to answer the question. The six categories are a display order, not a score.
Questions and results
Enhanced patient referral compared with simple patient referral for partner notification for STIs, including HIV
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Re‐infection in index patient ‐ home sampling vs. simple patient referral Enhanced patient referral vs simple patient referral | RR 2.14 [0.91, 5.05] | 1 study · 220 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Re‐infection in index patient ‐ information booklet vs. simple patient referral Enhanced patient referral vs simple patient referral | RR 0.55 [0.22, 1.33] | 2 studies · 942 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Re‐infection in index patient ‐ patient referral (DIS/health advisor) vs. patient referral (nurse) Enhanced patient referral vs simple patient referral | RR 0.35 [0.01, 8.51] | 1 study · 140 participants | Low Downgraded: imprecision |
Re‐infection in index patient ‐ disease‐specific website vs. simple referral Enhanced patient referral vs simple patient referral | RR 3.12 [0.17, 58.73] | 1 study · 105 participants | Low Downgraded: imprecision |
Re‐infection in index patient ‐ additional counselling vs. simple patient referral Enhanced patient referral vs simple patient referral | RR 0.49 [0.27, 0.89] | 1 study · 600 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Expedited partner therapy compared with simple patient referral for partner notification for STIs, including HIV
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Re‐infection in index patients Expedited partner therapy vs simple patient referral | RR 0.71 [0.56, 0.89] | 6 studies · 6018 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Re‐infection in index patients ‐ chlamydia Expedited partner therapy vs simple patient referral | RR 0.9 [0.6, 1.35] | 2 studies · 2007 participants | Moderate |
Re‐infection in index patients ‐ trichomonas Expedited partner therapy vs simple patient referral | RR 0.67 [0.34, 1.28] | 2 studies · 631 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Re‐infection in index patients ‐ chlamydia or gonorrhoea Expedited partner therapy vs simple patient referral | RR 0.61 [0.39, 0.94] | 2 studies · 3380 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Expedited partner therapy compared with enhanced patient referral for partner notification for STIs, including HIV
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
EPT vs. enhanced patient referral ‐ re‐infection in index patients Expedited partner therapy vs enhanced patient referral | RR 0.96 [0.6, 1.53] | 3 studies · 1220 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Contract referral compared with expedited partner therapy for partner notification for STIs, including HIV
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Re‐infection in index patient Contract referral vs expedited partner therapy | RR 2 [0.7, 5.72] | 1 study · 322 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |