Cleveland undated.

Methods	Setting: Dade County Department of Public Health, Georgia, US Enrolment: once the study criteria were met, participants were enrolled ‐ details not given Follow‐up: a test of cure was performed 3‐5 days after treatment. A re‐screening interview was performed 28 days after treatment
Participants	1898 index patients with gonorrhoea were randomised, 1786 men and 112 women Inclusion criteria Gonorrhoea positive by routine screening Diagnosis confirmed by positive smear (males only) or culture Treated according to US Public Health Service recommendations Exclusion criteria Identified as a contact Identified as a transient person Concomitant syphilis infection Infected with gonorrhoea during the previous 6 weeks
Interventions	Patient referral with pamphlet and health worker interview (n = 634) Index patient received an informational pamphlet. A health worker used the pamphlet to explain asymptomatic partners, re‐infection and complications. The patient was also encouraged to ask questions. Index patient was advised to refer his partners of the previous 30 days to the clinic. Index patient was offered 4 referral cards to be given to partners and where asked if he/she needed more or less. The number of cards taken was recorded Contract referral with interview from health worker (n = 632) Index patient received a standard interview to offer medical information, allow rapport building and to elicit contact details of partners. Index patient was advised to refer his partners of the previous 30 days to the clinic and was told that if partners did not present at the health service after 3 days, then the health worker would contact them Simple patient referral standard message (n = 632) Index patient only received a message to say that he/she had been diagnosed with gonorrhoea, that it was contracted sexually and that sexual partners of the previous 3‐4 weeks needed examination and treatment. Index patient was offered 4 referral cards to be given to partners and where asked if he/she needed more. No contact details of partners recorded
Outcomes	Partners presented to health service (clinic records, contact cards returned) Partners testing positive (laboratory records) Cost effectiveness (clinic records)
Notes	No details on ethics approval or consent from participants
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Patients were assigned through random selection to an intervention ‐ no specific details given
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	No details given
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Test outcome available for all partners of every index patient who was randomised
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	Outcomes reported in methods section were reported in results section. Trial registries not searched
Other bias	Unclear risk	Baseline comparability not reported
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	High risk	Participants and personnel not blinded
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Clinic worker showed partner a referral card and asked them whether they have seen one of these, it was coded to what mode of interview was used originally