Self-Collected versus Clinician-Collected Sampling for Chlamydia and Gonorrhea Screening: A Systemic Review and Meta-Analysis

Abstract

BackgroundThe increases in STI rates since the late 1990s in Canada have occurred despite widespread primary care and targeted public health programs and in the setting of universal health care. More innovative interventions are required that would eliminate barriers to STI testing such as internet-based or mail-in home and community service testing for patients that are hard to reach, who refuse to go for clinician-based testing, or who decline an examination. Jurisdictions such as New Zealand and some American states currently use self-collected sampling, but without the required evidence to determine whether self-collected specimens are as accurate as clinician-collected specimens in terms of chlamydia and gonorrhea diagnostic accuracy. The objective of the review is to compare self-collected vaginal, urine, pharyngeal and rectal samples to our reference standard - clinician-collected cervical, urethral, pharyngeal and rectal sampling techniques to identify a positive specimen using nucleic acid amplification test assays.MethodsThe hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic and the fixed effect models were used to assess the accuracy of comparable specimens that were collected by patients compared to clinicians. Sensitivity and specificity estimates with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were reported as our main outcome measures.FindingsWe included 21 studies based on over 6100 paired samples. Fourteen included studies examined chlamydia only, 6 compared both gonorrhea and chlamydia separately in the same study, and one examined gonorrhea. The six chlamydia studies comparing self-collection by vaginal swab to a clinician-collected cervical swab had the highest sensitivity (92%, 95% CI 87-95) and specificity (98%, 95% CI 97-99), compared to other specimen-types (urine/urethra or urine/cervix). Six studies compared urine self-samples to urethra clinician-collected samples in males and produced a sensitivity of 88% (95% CI 83-93) and a specificity of 99% (95% CI 0.94-0.99). Taking into account that urine samples may be less sensitive than cervical samples, eight chlamydia studies that compared urine self-collected verses clinician-collected cervical samples had a sensitivity of 87% (95% CI 81-91) and high specificity of 99% (95% CI 0.98-1.00). For gonorrhea testing, self-collected urine samples compared to clinician-collected urethra samples in males produced a sensitivity of 92% (95% CI 83-97) and specificity of 99% (95% CI 0.98-1.00).ConclusionThe sensitivity and specificity of vaginal self-collected swabs compared to swabs collected by clinicians supports the use of vaginal swab as the recommended specimen of choice in home-based screening for chlamydia and gonorrhea. Urine samples for gonorrhea collected by men had comparably high sensitivity and specificity, so could be recommended as they can be left at room temperature for several days, allowing for the possibility of mail-in home-based testing. In populations that may not go for testing at all, do not have the option of clinical testing, or who r...

Factors associated with consistent condom use and STIs among foreign female entertainment workers: results from a cross-sectional survey in Singapore

“…However, this was expected to be minimal, given the low rates of condom usage across both nationalities and the corroborative findings of laboratory-confirmed STIs. The sensitivity and specificity of self-collected vaginal swabs for cervical chlamydia and gonorrhoea were equivalent to clinician-collected swabs using NAAT in a meta-analysis 15. The sensitivity and specificity was 92% and 98%, respectively, for cervical chlamydia, while this was 98% and 97%, respectively, for cervical gonorrhoea using self-collected vaginal swabs compared with clinician-collected cervical samples 15.…”

Characteristics Associated With Urethral and Rectal Gonorrhea and Chlamydia Diagnoses in a US National Sample of Gay and Bisexual Men

“…The most common methods by which GC and CT are tested are through the collection of urine. Urine-based screening allows for self-collection(6) with minimal sample collection barriers compared to urethral specimens that need to be collected in a clinic setting(7). Patients provide a first-catch urine specimen that is transferred to a test specific transport tube.…”

Sampling technique and detection rates of oropharyngeal and anorectal gonorrhoea using nucleic acid amplification tests in men who have sex with men

“…There have been very limited studies comparing clinician-collected versus self-collected samples for the detection of anorectal and oropharyngeal gonorrhoea in men. Lunny et al 19 have recently published a meta-analysis and shown that self-collected oropharyngeal swabs have a high sensitivity (0.91; 95% CI 0.75 to 0.98) and specificity (0.97; 95% CI 0.95 to 0.98) compared with clinician-collected swabs for oropharyngeal gonorrhoea 19. However, this result is based only on one available study 20.…”