Syphilis in riverine communities: prevalence and associated factors.
Wynne Pereira Nogueira, Matheus Figueiredo Nogueira, Jordana de Almeida Nogueira and 3 others
PMID 35007316WHAT IT FOUND
Syphilis screening was positive in 11.6% of 250 riverine adults.
Previous STI, imprisonment, and more than two partners were linked with positive results. Community nurses can use this to target screening and counselling.
Key findings
01The rapid-test prevalence of syphilis was 11.6% (95%CI 7.5-15.6), corresponding to 29 positive results among riverine dwellers.
02In logistic regression, previous history of STIs (OR 8.00; 95%CI 2.76-23.2), history of imprisonment (OR 7.39; 95%CI 1.61-33.7), and more than two sexual partners in the last 12 months (OR 4.31; 95%CI 1.55-11.9) were associated with positive rapid-test results.
03Most participants reported not using a condom in their last sexual intercourse: 69.2%.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for RNs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
The cross-sectional design does not allow causal inference about the associated factors. The rapid test used for prevalence cannot diagnose active syphilis or distinguish it from serological scarring in previously treated people. The study was carried out in five riverine communities in the municipality of João Pessoa and surrounding areas, so the findings may not apply to other populations. The authors state that comparable riverine prevalence data are scarce, limiting external comparison.
Declared interests
This work was carried out with support of CAPES, Financing Code 001. The supplied text does not report other conflicts of interest.
The easy way to misread this
Do not read the 11.6% rapid-test positivity rate as a confirmed active syphilis diagnosis, or the odds ratios as proof that these factors caused infection. The test cannot distinguish current infection from treated serological scarring, and the cross-sectional design cannot establish causation.