Summary of findings 4. Contract referral compared with expedited partner therapy for partner notification for STIs, including HIV.
| Contract referral compared with expedited partner therapy for partner notification for STIs, including HIV | ||||||
| Health problem: partner notification for sexually transmitted infections, including HIV Settings: people in rural and urban areas, given a diagnosis of STI (clinically or by a laboratory) in health services Intervention: contract referral Comparison: expedited partner therapy | ||||||
| Outcomes | Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI) | Relative effect (95% CI) | No of Participants (studies) | Quality of the evidence (GRADE) | Comments | |
| Assumed risk | Corresponding risk | |||||
| EPT | Contract referral | |||||
| Re‐infection in index patient Follow‐up: 3 months | Study population | RR 2 (0.7 to 5.72) | 322 (1 study) | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ low1,2 | ||
| 99 per 1000 | 198 per 1000 (69 to 565) | |||||
| Moderate | ||||||
| 99 per 1000 | 198 per 1000 (69 to 566) | |||||
| The corresponding risk (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI). CI: confidence interval; RR: risk ratio. | ||||||
| GRADE Working Group grades of evidence High quality: Further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect. Moderate quality: Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate. Low quality: Further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate. Very low quality: We are very uncertain about the estimate. | ||||||
1 Method of sequence generation and allocation concealment not reported. The study had high attrition rate. No blinding. 2 Imprecision owing to small sample size.