MedElevator Войти в исследования
← Поиск публикаций

DOI 10.1097/01.olq.0000251203.34805.28

Медицинская библиотека · Sexually transmitted diseases · 2007

Contact-tracing outcomes among male syphilis patients in Fulton County, Georgia, 2003.

Samoff Erika, Koumans Emilia H, Katkowsky Steven, Shouse R Luke, Markowitz Lauri E, Fulton County Disease Investigation Working Group

Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАПеревод в очереди

Аннотация

OBJECTIVES

Contact tracing may be less effective in populations with casual sex partners such as male syphilis patients who report sex with men; this opinion is widely held, but few quantitative comparisons are available.

GOAL: The goal of this study was to compare contact-tracing outcomes among male syphilis patients reporting sex with men (MSM) or with women only (MSWO).

STUDY

DESIGN

The authors conducted a record review of cases of early syphilis among MSM and MSWO comparing contact-tracing outcomes.

RESULTS

Interviews of MSM case-patients resulted in higher mean numbers of contacts named and located per case than interviews of MSWO. Mean numbers of contacts of MSM and MSWO diagnosed with syphilis per case were not significantly different. The mean number of unlocatable sex partners per case was slightly higher for MSM than MSWO.

CONCLUSION

This study comparing contact tracing by the same trained health department personnel demonstrated that outcomes of contact tracing were similar for MSM and MSWO.

Для цитирования: Samoff Erika, Koumans Emilia H, Katkowsky Steven, Shouse R Luke, Markowitz Lauri E, Fulton County Disease Investigation Working Group. Contact-tracing outcomes among male syphilis patients in Fulton County, Georgia, 2003.. Sexually transmitted diseases. 2007. DOI: 10.1097/01.olq.0000251203.34805.28.

Предметные рубрики MeSH

Подготовка и перевод публикации
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…

История · было → стало

Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.

Тип публикации указан по данным источника. Уровень доказательности автоматически не присваивается.