Routinized Syphilis Screening Among Men Living With Human Immunodeficiency Virus: A Stepped Wedge Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We implemented an opt-out clinic-based intervention pairing syphilis tests with routine human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) viral load testing. The primary objective was to determine the degree to which this intervention increased the detection of early syphilis. METHODS: The Enhanced Syphilis Screening Among HIV-Positive Men (ESSAHM) Trial was a stepped wedge cluster-randomized controlled trial involving 4 urban HIV clinics in Ontario, Canada, from 2015 to 2017. The population was HIV-positive adult males. The intervention was standing orders for syphilis serological testing with viral loads, and control was usual practice. We obtained test results via linkage with the centralized provincial laboratory and defined cases using a standardized clinical worksheet and medical record review. We employed a generalized linear mixed model with a logit link to estimate odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of the intervention. RESULTS: A total of 3895 men were followed over 7471 person-years. The mean number of syphilis tests increased from 0.53 to 2.02 tests per person per year. There were 217 new diagnoses of syphilis (control, 81; intervention, 136), for which 147 (68%) were cases of early syphilis (control, 61 [75%]; intervention, 86 [63%]). The annualized proportion with newly detected early syphilis increased from 0.009 to 0.032 with implementation of the intervention; the corresponding time-adjusted OR was 1.25 (95% CI, .71-2.20). CONCLUSIONS: The implementation of standing orders for syphilis testing with HIV viral loads was feasible and increased testing, yet produced less-than-expected increases in case detection compared to past uncontrolled pre-post trials. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT02019043.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".