A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Validation of self-reported male circumcision status and genital ulcer disease among Ugandan men. | LitMetric

Objective: Voluntary medical male circumcision (MC) is a critical tool in combination HIV prevention programmes in Africa. Self-reported MC (SrMC) status is used in HIV epidemiological surveys to assess MC coverage but is subject to response bias with limited validation. This study evaluated the utility of SrMC status as a marker of MC as well as self-reported genital lesions for genital ulcer disease (GUD) among Ugandan men.

Methods: Male participants aged 18-49 years in the cross-sectional Sexually Transmitted Infection Prevalence study, conducted between May and October 2019, responded to a questionnaire capturing SrMC status and current genital ulcer symptoms followed by clinical assessment to verify MC and presence of GUD.Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value and corresponding CIs (95% CI) for SrMC status and GUD were estimated.

Results: There were 853 male participants, of whom 470 (55.1%) self-reported being circumcised and 23 (2.7%) self-reported GUD (SrGUD). MC was clinically confirmed in 50.2% (n=428) of participants with sensitivity of SrMC status at 99% (95% CI: 98% to 100%) and specificity 89% (95% CI: 86% to 92%). Specificity of SrMC was lowest among persons living with HIV and viremic (>1000 copies/mL) at 72% (95% CI: 46% to 90%). 18 participants had clinically confirmed GUD, but only 12 SrGUD symptoms, corresponding to a sensitivity and specificity of 67% (95% CI: 41% to 87%) and 99% (95% CI: 98% to 99%), respectively.

Conclusions: SrMC status is a robust proxy for clinically confirmed MC status and may reliably be used to assess MC coverage in this setting. Conversely, GUD symptoms were under-reported, which may impact effective syndromic management of sexually transmitted infections and warrants further examination.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/sextrans-2023-056096DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

srmc status
24
genital ulcer
12
clinically confirmed
12
male circumcision
8
status
8
ulcer disease
8
assess coverage
8
male participants
8
sexually transmitted
8
gud srgud
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!