Xu 2011.

Methods	Setting: STI clinics and family planning clinics in New Orleans, Louisiana, St Louis, Missouri, and Jackson, Mississippi, United States Study design: Parallel two arms. Enrollment between 2005 and 2007 Sample size estimation a priori: Yes
Participants	Inclusion criteria Women 16 years and older CT positive Exclusion criteria Pregnant or women trying to conceive Women who are planning to move in the following 3 months Currently living outside the study areas Inability to understand spoken English adequately Self‐reported HIV infection, other serious illnesses or disability Self‐reported allergy to macrolide antibiotics such as azithromycin Referrals from providers or clinics other than the STD or family planning clinics, unless women are re‐tested at the STD clinics and test positive for chlamydia Population Mean age 22 years. 1292 women with C. trachomatis infection were randomized to rescreening, 639 to home‐based strategy and 653 to clinic‐based strategy
Interventions	Home‐based specimen collection (n = 639) Participants in home group were mailed a vaginal swab kit for self collection at home and they returned the sample via mail Clinical‐based specimen collection (n = 653) Participants in clinic group were given an appointment to return to clinics for rescreening for CT infection
Outcomes	Rescreening 3 months after treatment (189/639)(120/653) Reinfection (29/189)(27/120)
Notes	Funding sources: "Funded by Centers for Disease Control and Prevention" Role of funder: Not reported Declarations of interest: None declared It is unclear if all participants with positive test and their sexual partners were treated. Ethical approval was obtained from ethical committees of Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center, Washington University, University of Mississippi State Department of Health, and the CDC. All participants provided informed consent Number of identifier register: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00132457
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Quote "Women were randomly assigned... according to a random number generator... with a block size of 12"
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	No subjective outcomes reported
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	High risk	In home‐based group 189/639 participants were tested and in clinic‐based group 120/653 were tested. More than 20% participants were not tested and the missing data were not balanced in the group
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) Long‐term outcomes	Unclear risk	Only number of individuals not tested reported; however clearly information was not available to make a judgement
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	Protocol was available from trial registry. Primary outcome in protocol same as in trial
Other bias	High risk	Reminders added to management strategy, also this study evaluated re‐testing

CT = Chlamydia trachomatis

NG = Neisseria gonorrhoeae