Skip to main page content
Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
, 10 (7), e0132776

Self-Collected Versus Clinician-Collected Sampling for Chlamydia and Gonorrhea Screening: A Systemic Review and Meta-Analysis


Self-Collected Versus Clinician-Collected Sampling for Chlamydia and Gonorrhea Screening: A Systemic Review and Meta-Analysis

Carole Lunny et al. PLoS One.


Background: The increases in STI rates since the late 1990s in Canada have occurred despite widespread primary care and targeted public health programs and in the setting of universal health care. More innovative interventions are required that would eliminate barriers to STI testing such as internet-based or mail-in home and community service testing for patients that are hard to reach, who refuse to go for clinician-based testing, or who decline an examination. Jurisdictions such as New Zealand and some American states currently use self-collected sampling, but without the required evidence to determine whether self-collected specimens are as accurate as clinician-collected specimens in terms of chlamydia and gonorrhea diagnostic accuracy. The objective of the review is to compare self-collected vaginal, urine, pharyngeal and rectal samples to our reference standard - clinician-collected cervical, urethral, pharyngeal and rectal sampling techniques to identify a positive specimen using nucleic acid amplification test assays.

Methods: The hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic and the fixed effect models were used to assess the accuracy of comparable specimens that were collected by patients compared to clinicians. Sensitivity and specificity estimates with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were reported as our main outcome measures.

Findings: We included 21 studies based on over 6100 paired samples. Fourteen included studies examined chlamydia only, 6 compared both gonorrhea and chlamydia separately in the same study, and one examined gonorrhea. The six chlamydia studies comparing self-collection by vaginal swab to a clinician-collected cervical swab had the highest sensitivity (92%, 95% CI 87-95) and specificity (98%, 95% CI 97-99), compared to other specimen-types (urine/urethra or urine/cervix). Six studies compared urine self-samples to urethra clinician-collected samples in males and produced a sensitivity of 88% (95% CI 83-93) and a specificity of 99% (95% CI 0.94-0.99). Taking into account that urine samples may be less sensitive than cervical samples, eight chlamydia studies that compared urine self-collected verses clinician-collected cervical samples had a sensitivity of 87% (95% CI 81-91) and high specificity of 99% (95% CI 0.98-1.00). For gonorrhea testing, self-collected urine samples compared to clinician-collected urethra samples in males produced a sensitivity of 92% (95% CI 83-97) and specificity of 99% (95% CI 0.98-1.00).

Conclusion: The sensitivity and specificity of vaginal self-collected swabs compared to swabs collected by clinicians supports the use of vaginal swab as the recommended specimen of choice in home-based screening for chlamydia and gonorrhea. Urine samples for gonorrhea collected by men had comparably high sensitivity and specificity, so could be recommended as they can be left at room temperature for several days, allowing for the possibility of mail-in home-based testing. In populations that may not go for testing at all, do not have the option of clinical testing, or who refuse a clinical examination, self-collected screening would be a good alternative. We recommend that guidelines on how to self-collect gonorrhea and chlamydia urine, vaginal, rectal and pharyngeal specimens be published.

Conflict of interest statement

Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.


Fig 1
Fig 1. PRISMA flowchart of identification and selection of studies.
Fig 2
Fig 2. HSROC plots of chlamydia self-collection compared to clinician-collection (top row) and HSROC plots of chlamydia self-sampling by assay type (bottom row).
Top row: The circles represent individual studies and size of the circle is proportional to the number of patients included in the study. The red square is the summary estimate of sensitivity and specificity, and the red dotted ellipse around the spots respresents the 95% confidence interval around the summary estimate. The green dotted ellipse around the spots represents the prediction contours outlining the prediction region for the true sensitivity and specificity in a future study. Bottom row: Coloured lines represent the HSROC curve by assay type in Chlamydia studies.
Fig 3
Fig 3. Forest plot of the accuracy of chlamydia self-collection compared to clinician collection.
Fig 4
Fig 4. Forest plot of gonorrhea self-sampling compared to clinician sampling.
Fig 5
Fig 5. Fixed effects sROC plots of gonorrhea studies comparing self-collected urine to either clinician-collected urethra (left) or cervical (right) samples by PCR assay type.
Colored lines represent the sROC curve by assay type.

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by 26 articles

See all "Cited by" articles


    1. BC Centre for Disease Control (2009) STI/HIV Prevention and Control 2009 Annual Surveillance Report. Vancouver, British Columbia.
    1. BC Centre for Disease Control (2011) STI in British Columbia: 2011 Annual Surveillance Report. Vancouver, British Columbia.
    1. Mayaud P, McCormick D (2001) Interventions against sexually transmitted infections (STI) to prevent HIV infection. Br Med Bull 58: 129–153. - PubMed
    1. Public Health Agency of Canada (2010) Reported cases and rates of chlamydia by province/territory and sex, 1991 to 2009. Ottawa, ON.
    1. Fisman DN, Laupland KB (2011) Sexually transmitted infections in Canada: A sticky situation. Can J Infect Dis Med Microbiol 22: 80–82. - PMC - PubMed