Apoola 2009.

Methods	Setting: STI clinic at a single study site in Derbyshire, UK Enrolment: participants recruited by health adviser ‐ recruitment period not given Follow‐up: no follow‐up of index patient
Participants	200 index patients with a diagnosis of genital chlamydia were randomised Inclusion criteria Diagnosis of genital chlamydia Female Exclusion criteria Not specified
Interventions	Patient referral with swab testing (clinic) (n = 100) Index patients were seen by a health adviser and details of contacts recorded. Contact slips coded with the diagnosis were given to the index patient to give to the male partners, who were to bring this to the clinic for testing by urethral swab and treatment Patient referral with home sampling urine kit (n = 100) Index patients were seen by health advisers and details of contacts recorded. Contact slips coded with the diagnosis and a urine sampling kit, for the partner, with instructions, on collecting a first pass urine sample at home, were given to the index patient. Sampling kits included directions to clinic where the samples would be tested and partners would be treated if they tested positive
Outcomes	Primary outcome: Number of partners treated per index case (clinic records) Secondary outcomes: Number of partners identified per index (recorded by health adviser) Number of traceable partners (contact slips) Number of partners treated within 28 days (clinic records) Number of index patients with at least 1 partner treated within 28 days per index case (%, clinic records)
Notes	Ethical approval was obtained from the Derbyshire Research Ethics Committee When the study was originally designed, the PN rate at the study site was 0.3 contacts per index case of chlamydia and the study was powered to detect a difference of 0.2 contacts per index case. However, during the study period, the PN rates improved significantly making it more difficult to detect 0.2 contacts per case difference Authors were contacted regarding blinding, consent and exact numbers reported. Authors reported that investigators were not blinded, oral consent was obtained and they gave the number of partners elicited
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Blocked randomisation based on random numbers
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	Allocated group concealed in sealed opaque numbered envelopes opened sequentially
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Outcome for each partner of every index patient who was randomised was available
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	Protocol was available from trial registry. Only primary outcome was stated in protocol, no secondary outcomes were stated. Primary outcome in protocol same as in trial. Outcomes in method section of trial are the same outcomes reported
Other bias	Low risk	No other bias identified
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	High risk	No blinding of participants or personnel (health adviser)
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	High risk	Investigators were not blinded. Nucleic acid amplification tests with high specificity and sensitivity were used on urine specimens. Test used for urethral swab not specified. Details on blinding not given but obtained from authors directly who advised that investigators were not blinded