BACKGROUND: Studies of the accuracy of syndromic management have demonstrated widely varying results depending upon gender, location of infection, risk group, organisms, among other factors. GOAL: To review current knowledge about syndromic management of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) and to make recommendations about the strengths and weaknesses of different syndromic management algorithms. STUDY DESIGN: The authors identified articles and abstracts about the syndromic management of STDs. Evaluation of the effectiveness of algorithms for urethral discharge, genital ulcer disease, and vaginal discharge was based primarily on published sensitivity and specificity data. RESULTS: Overall, algorithms for the diagnosis and treatment of urethral discharge and genital ulcer disease in men had high sensitivities or cure rates (urethral discharge, 87-99%; genital ulcer disease, 68-98%). The sensitivities for the algorithms for vaginal discharge ranged from 73% to 93% among women presenting with symptoms of vaginal discharge, and from 29% to 86% among women not presenting with symptoms. Vaginal discharge was not found to be an effective indicator of cervical infection and, therefore, is not an independently effective screening tool to detect women with cervical infection, especially in low-risk or asymptomatic populations. Incorporating risk scores can improve the accuracy of algorithms to detect cervical infection. CONCLUSIONS: Algorithms for urethral discharge and genital ulcer disease can be effective in STDs. The current algorithms for vaginal discharge are not highly effective in detecting gonorrhea and chlamydia in women; risk scores can improve their efficacy, but must be tailored to reflect community risks. Without attention to the qualitative aspects of STD syndromic management, these methods will likely have even less accuracy than the studies reviewed above. There remains an urgent need for the development of an affordable, rapid, and effective diagnostic technique that will improve STD detection in resource-poor settings.
BACKGROUND: Studies of the accuracy of syndromic management have demonstrated widely varying results depending upon gender, location of infection, risk group, organisms, among other factors. GOAL: To review current knowledge about syndromic management of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) and to make recommendations about the strengths and weaknesses of different syndromic management algorithms. STUDY DESIGN: The authors identified articles and abstracts about the syndromic management of STDs. Evaluation of the effectiveness of algorithms for urethral discharge, genital ulcer disease, and vaginal discharge was based primarily on published sensitivity and specificity data. RESULTS: Overall, algorithms for the diagnosis and treatment of urethral discharge and genital ulcer disease in men had high sensitivities or cure rates (urethral discharge, 87-99%; genital ulcer disease, 68-98%). The sensitivities for the algorithms for vaginal discharge ranged from 73% to 93% among women presenting with symptoms of vaginal discharge, and from 29% to 86% among women not presenting with symptoms. Vaginal discharge was not found to be an effective indicator of cervical infection and, therefore, is not an independently effective screening tool to detect women with cervical infection, especially in low-risk or asymptomatic populations. Incorporating risk scores can improve the accuracy of algorithms to detect cervical infection. CONCLUSIONS: Algorithms for urethral discharge and genital ulcer disease can be effective in STDs. The current algorithms for vaginal discharge are not highly effective in detecting gonorrhea and chlamydia in women; risk scores can improve their efficacy, but must be tailored to reflect community risks. Without attention to the qualitative aspects of STD syndromic management, these methods will likely have even less accuracy than the studies reviewed above. There remains an urgent need for the development of an affordable, rapid, and effective diagnostic technique that will improve STD detection in resource-poor settings.
Authors: Neha S Shah; Evelyn Kim; Flor de Maria Hernández Ayala; Maria Elena Guardado Escobar; Ana Isabel Nieto; Andrea A Kim; Gabriela Paz-Bailey Journal: Int J STD AIDS Date: 2014-03-10 Impact factor: 1.359
Authors: Augustina A Sylverken; Ellis Owusu-Dabo; Denis D Yar; Samson P Salifu; Nana Yaa Awua-Boateng; John H Amuasi; Portia B Okyere; Thomas Agyarko-Poku Journal: Ghana Med J Date: 2016-09
Authors: N Nagot; N Meda; A Ouangre; A Ouedraogo; S Yaro; I Sombie; M C Defer; H Barennes; P Van de Perre Journal: Sex Transm Infect Date: 2004-04 Impact factor: 3.519
Authors: Enesia Banda Chaponda; R Matthew Chico; Jane Bruce; Charles Michelo; Bellington Vwalika; Sungano Mharakurwa; Mike Chaponda; James Chipeta; Daniel Chandramohan Journal: Am J Trop Med Hyg Date: 2016-09-26 Impact factor: 2.345
Authors: J Pépin; S Deslandes; N Khonde; D F Kintin; S Diakité; M Sylla; H Méda; F Sobéla; C Asamoah-Adu; T Agyarko-Poku; E Frost Journal: Sex Transm Infect Date: 2004-06 Impact factor: 3.519
Authors: Yue-ping Yin; Zunyou Wu; Chunqing Lin; Jihui Guan; Yi Wen; Li Li; Roger Detels; Mary Jane Rotheram-Borus Journal: Int J STD AIDS Date: 2008-06 Impact factor: 1.359