This may mean conducting more studies with long follow-up times, either prospectively or retrospectively (i.e. surveillance data or medical history databases). The short follow-up times found in two studies could have led to inaccurate representations of reinfection rates.18,22 A reoccurring limitation cited within studies was that investigators were not certain on whether participants’ medical histories were complete. Participants could conceivably be screened and treated at clinics not affiliated with the studies. If patients were tested elsewhere, researchers would be unaware of the results due to lack of record sharing. Unexpectedly, only about half of the reviewed studies included a case definition of reinfection. Lack of universal definition negatively impacted interpretation of prevalence rate and comparison of results between studies. Additionally, improper definitions could lead to misclassification bias. There were a number of limitations to this review. It was difficult to interpret results due to methodological concerns, namely attrition rates, homogenous populations, incomplete sexual/medical histories, and inadequate follow-up times and intervals, which also influenced validity and generalizability of results. Despite the University of Pittsburgh’s comprehensive access to a number of databases and journals, not all eligible papers could be accessed. Finally, as a novice reviewer, lack of experience and limited outside help may have led to some pertinent studies being missed. There are often inherent biases associated with conducting a literature review, particularly when excluding studies based on reading abstracts and whole articles. There was a chance that despite attempting to do so, this literature review was not conducted in a wholly objective manner. Screening is an important tool that must be utilized, especially with male adolescents, who were underrepresented based on this literature review. The array of risk factors presented in this literature review suggested that populations at-risk may not be immediately determined from
This may mean conducting more studies with long follow-up times, either prospectively or retrospectively (i.e. surveillance data or medical history databases). The short follow-up times found in two studies could have led to inaccurate representations of reinfection rates.18,22 A reoccurring limitation cited within studies was that investigators were not certain on whether participants’ medical histories were complete. Participants could conceivably be screened and treated at clinics not affiliated with the studies. If patients were tested elsewhere, researchers would be unaware of the results due to lack of record sharing. Unexpectedly, only about half of the reviewed studies included a case definition of reinfection. Lack of universal definition negatively impacted interpretation of prevalence rate and comparison of results between studies. Additionally, improper definitions could lead to misclassification bias. There were a number of limitations to this review. It was difficult to interpret results due to methodological concerns, namely attrition rates, homogenous populations, incomplete sexual/medical histories, and inadequate follow-up times and intervals, which also influenced validity and generalizability of results. Despite the University of Pittsburgh’s comprehensive access to a number of databases and journals, not all eligible papers could be accessed. Finally, as a novice reviewer, lack of experience and limited outside help may have led to some pertinent studies being missed. There are often inherent biases associated with conducting a literature review, particularly when excluding studies based on reading abstracts and whole articles. There was a chance that despite attempting to do so, this literature review was not conducted in a wholly objective manner. Screening is an important tool that must be utilized, especially with male adolescents, who were underrepresented based on this literature review. The array of risk factors presented in this literature review suggested that populations at-risk may not be immediately determined from
Janine_Talis_Masters_4_2016.docx