Oxman A D, Scott E A, Sellors J W, Clarke J H, Millson M E, Rasooly I, Frank J W, Naus M, Goldblatt E
Department of Family Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario.
Can J Public Health. 1994 Jul-Aug;85 Suppl 1:S41-7.
To compare the effectiveness of alternative partner notification strategies for gonorrhea, chlamydia, syphilis, HIV and hepatitis B.
Studies were identified using MEDLINE, EMBASE, SCISEARCH and other databases, review of reference lists and personal contact with over 80 international experts.
Studies with at least two comparison groups exposed to different partner notification strategies were included.
Methodological rigor was assessed, and information regarding study populations, interventions and outcomes was extracted independently by two reviewers.
Twelve studies met our inclusion criteria; five were methodologically strong; seven provided data on the referral process; four provided data on trained interviewers compared with routine care providers; and three provided data on the interview process.
Only limited, broad conclusions regarding the effectiveness of various partner notification approaches could be drawn from these comparative studies. Until newer data become available, practice guidelines must be based to a large extent on other grounds.
比较淋病、衣原体感染、梅毒、艾滋病毒和乙型肝炎的替代性性伴侣通知策略的有效性。
通过MEDLINE、EMBASE、SCISEARCH和其他数据库检索研究，查阅参考文献列表，并与80多位国际专家进行个人联系。
纳入至少有两个比较组且采用不同性伴侣通知策略的研究。
评估方法的严谨性，由两名评审员独立提取有关研究人群、干预措施和结果的信息。
12项研究符合我们的纳入标准；5项研究方法严谨；7项研究提供了关于转诊过程的数据；4项研究提供了关于经过培训的访谈员与常规护理提供者对比的数据；3项研究提供了关于访谈过程的数据。
从这些比较研究中只能得出关于各种性伴侣通知方法有效性的有限、宽泛的结论。在有更新的数据可用之前，实践指南在很大程度上必须基于其他依据。
