Montesinos 1990.

Methods	Setting: the health service of the Southern Illinois University, a large mid‐western university, Illinois, US Enrolment: participants were enrolled from July 1984 to June 1985 Follow‐up: no follow‐up recorded of index patients
Participants	65 index patients (48 men and 17 females) with gonorrhoea or NGU were randomised Inclusion criteria Diagnosis of gonorrhoea or NGU University students Participant's partners were university students At least 1 sexual partner in the previous 6 weeks Exclusion criteria No criteria specified
Interventions	Patient referral with counselling (nurse of physician) (n = 27) Index patient received counselling from a physician (in his office) or a nurse (designated private area) following a written protocol. Counsellor ascertained the reason for seeking treatment, gave information on STI, obtained names of sexual partners in previous 6 weeks, advise index patient to notify partner and assured index patient of confidentiality Patient referral with counselling, incentive and cards (n = 19) Index patient received counselling from a physician (in his office) or a nurse (designated private area) following a written protocol. Counsellor ascertained the reason for seeking treatment, gave information on STI, obtained names of sexual partners in previous 6 weeks, advised index patient to notify partner and assured index patient of confidentiality. In addition, counsellor advised index patient that USD 3 charge, for index patient and partner, will be waived if partner successfully referred. A card with naming specific STI and advise to seek treatment given to index patient to give to partner Patient referral with counselling, cards, follow‐up call after 5 days, no incentive (n = 19) Index patient received counselling from a physician (in his office) or a nurse (designated private area) following a written protocol. Counsellor ascertained the reason for seeking treatment, gave information on STI, obtained names of sexual partners in previous 6 weeks, advised index patient to notify partner and assured index patient of confidentiality. A card naming specific STI and advise to seek treatment given to index patient to give to partner. Index patient did not receive any financial incentive. Counsellor told index patient that if partner failed to arrive at health service within 5 working days the index patient would be contacted by telephone
Outcomes	Partners elicited (self report by index patient) Partners presenting at health service (a list of partners identified in counselling session was kept at health service) Mean cost per partner traced (clinic records)
Notes	Ethical approval from Southern Illinois University ‐ Committee for Research involving Human Subjects 17 females vs. 48 males. 2 different time periods. Group 1 was interviewed from July to December 1984 and groups 2 and 3 received intervention in January to June 1985 ‐ possibility that holidays can play a role on who is available during that time
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	No details given
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	High risk	The protocol was colour coded. The counsellor removed the next protocol for the next patient from a randomly ordered set
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Outcome data for all partners of index patients available
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	Outcomes reported in methods section were reported in results section. Trial registries not searched
Other bias	Low risk	No other bias identified
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	High risk	Participant and personnel not blinded
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	High risk	No blinding. Names of partners were recorded on the counselling protocols. A list for these identified partners were maintained for up to 1 month after index patient was seen to see if partners returned