Lippman 2007.

Methods	Setting: Low‐income clinic population in São Paulo, Brazil Study design: Parallel two arms. Enrollment between April and November 2004 Sample size estimation a priori: No
Participants	Inclusion criteria Women, aged 18 to 40 years Ability to read and to follow collection and testing instructions Exclusion criteria Not specified Population Mean age 27.6 years 818 women were randomized, 410 to home‐based strategy and 408 to clinic‐based strategy for CT, TV and NG detection
Interventions	Home‐based specimen collection (n = 410) Participants in home group received a kit to take the CT, NG and TV test at home, then in the following 7 days they had to return the sample to study clinic. They also had a questionnaire on acceptability. Clinical‐based specimen collection (n = 408) Participants in clinic group received an identical kit with STI information and an appointment card for testing at the study clinic. Additionally during the appointment a pelvic examination was performed and two endocervical samples collected. Afterwards they answered a questionnaire on acceptability.
Outcomes	Test completed (393/410)(394/408) Feasibility and acceptability of testing
Notes	Funding sources: "this study was funded by the Office of Population and Reproductive Health, Bureau for Global Health, U.S. Agency for International Development" Declarations of interest: Not reported Role of funder: Not reported Ethical approval was obtained from ethical committees of the Irmandade Santa Casa de Misericórdia de São Paulo, the Brazilian National Ethics Committee and the Population Council. All participants provided informed consent Number of identifier register: Not found
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Quote "identification numbers were randomized before study commencement in blocks of 16"
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	Group allocation was concealed using sealed envelopes
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	High risk	No blinding, the outcomes are likely to be influenced by lack of blinding
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) Subjective outcomes	Unclear risk	There is not sufficient information to permit judgement
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) Objective outcomes	Unclear risk	It is not reported if the laboratory personnel or assessors were blinded
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) Short‐term outcomes	Low risk	Participants tested in home‐based group were 393/410 and 394/408 in clinic‐based group
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) Long‐term outcomes	Unclear risk	Only one long‐term outcome was evaluated, number of individuals not tested; however clearly information was not available to make a judgement
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	Protocol was not available from 3 trial registries. No information available in methods section to make a judgement
Other bias	High risk	Reminders added to management strategy