Modelling the potential role of saliva use during masturbation in the transmission of Neisseria gonorrhoeae at multiple anatomical sites
Xianglong Xu![https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1873-4734](/media/client/orcid_16x16.png)
![https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1766-0657](/media/client/orcid_16x16.png)
![https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5784-7403](/media/client/orcid_16x16.png)
![https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9329-8501](/media/client/orcid_16x16.png)
![https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2343-084X](/media/client/orcid_16x16.png)
A Melbourne Sexual Health Centre, Alfred Health, 580 Swanston Street, Carlton, Vic. 3053, Australia.
B Faculty of Medicine, Central Clinical School, Nursing and Health Sciences, Monash University, 99 Commercial Road, Melbourne, Vic. 3004, Australia.
C China Australia Joint Research Center for Infectious Diseases, School of Public Health, Xi’an Jiaotong University Health Science Centre, Xi’an, Shaanxi 710061, PR China.
D Centre for Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, 207 Bouverie Street, Carlton, Vic. 3053, Australia.
E Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, College of Public Health, Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou 450001, Henan, China.
Sexual Health 18(6) 466-474 https://doi.org/10.1071/SH21138
Submitted: 23 July 2021 Accepted: 5 October 2021 Published: 17 December 2021
© 2021 The Author(s) (or their employer(s)). Published by CSIRO Publishing. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC-ND)
Abstract
Background: Neisseria gonorrhoeae can be cultured from saliva in men with pharyngeal gonorrhoea and could theoretically be transmitted from the pharynx to the urethra when saliva is used as a lubricant for masturbation. In this work, we proposed that saliva use during masturbation may be a potential transmission route of gonorrhoea.
Methods: We analysed the transmission of Neisseria gonorrhoeae at the oropharynx, urethra and anorectum with mathematical models among men who have sex with men using data from six different studies. Model 1 included transmission routes (oral sex, anal sex, rimming, kissing, and three sequential sex practices). In Model 2, we added saliva use during solo masturbation and mutual masturbation to model 1.
Results: Model 2 could replicate single site infection at the oropharynx, urethra and anorectum and multi-site infection across six different datasets. However, the calibration of Model 2 was not significantly different from Model 1 across four datasets. Model 2 generated an incidence of gonorrhoea from masturbation of between 5.2% (95% CI: 3.2–10.1) to 10.6% (95% CI: 5.8–17.3) across six data sets. Model 2 also estimated that about one in four cases of urethral gonorrhoea might arise from solo masturbation and mutual masturbation.
Conclusions: Our models raise the possibility that saliva use during masturbation may play a role in transmitting gonorrhoea. This is an important area to explore because it contributes to the knowledge base about gonorrhoea transmission.
Keywords: anatomical, mathematical model, men who have sex with men, mutual masturbation, Neisseria gonorrhoeae, saliva, sexual behaviour, site-specific, solo masturbation, transmission.
Introduction
Neisseria gonorrhoeae is a common sexually transmitted infection (STI) among men who have sex with men (MSM).1,2 Emerging evidence suggests that sexual practices involving the oropharynx and saliva may be potential transmission routes of N. gonorrhoeae.3–8 A previous study has explored the site-specific transmission of N. gonorrhoeae in MSM and found that sequential sexual practices involving the oropharynx or saliva might explain the relatively high proportion of infections at multiple anatomical sites in MSM.7 However, the current understanding of the role of the oropharynx and saliva in the transmission of N. gonorrhoeae is still unclear.
Masturbation is a common sexual practice,9 and MSM may use saliva as a lubricant when masturbating. In a study conducted among 446 MSM attending a sexual health service, 33.9% of participants reported they had used saliva as a lubricant for solo masturbation, and 33.6% of participants used their saliva as a lubricant for mutual masturbation.10 In addition, a cross-sectional study from Australia demonstrated that 48.4–60.8% of 1596 MSM attending a sexual health service reported mutual masturbation using saliva as a lubricant.11
The role of using saliva in sexual practice in the transmission of N. gonorrhoeae has not been well studied. The proportion of saliva samples positive by culture among men with culture-positive oropharyngeal infection was 8%,12 43%13 and 67%,14 in previous studies, which indicates that viable bacteria are present in saliva. A study reported that N. gonorrhoeae bacterial DNA load in the saliva was 446 copies/mL (interquartile ranges (IQR), 204–1390 copies/mL) and was 1.7 × 105 (IQR: 2.8 × 103 to 2.6 × 106) copies/mL in the pharynges.15 Cumulating evidence suggests that N. gonorrhoeae may be transmitted through saliva.6–8,16 As N. gonorrhoeae could be cultured from saliva among MSM with oropharyngeal gonorrhoea, it is possible that infectious N. gonorrhoeae could be transmitted via activities involving saliva,15 such as masturbation; however, there have been no studies or mathematical models examining masturbation as a route of transmission of N. gonorrhoeae. We have previously explored saliva’s role in N. gonorrhoeae transmission among MSM in mathematical models, finding that sexual practices involving saliva (e.g. oral sex, rimming, and kissing) may be important for gonorrhoea transmission;7,8,16 however, to date, no study has investigated the role of saliva use during masturbation in the transmission of N. gonorrhoeae. In this paper, we use these models to test whether adding masturbation involving saliva as a route of transmission of N. gonorrhoeae in MSM can improve the model. We then estimate what proportion of gonorrhoea incidence is attributed to masturbation involving saliva.
Methods
Data resource
We identified six available studies using nucleic acid amplification tests with single-site and multi-site infection of N. gonorrhoeae: (1) 4873 MSM attending the Melbourne Sexual Health Centre;17 (2) MSM surveillance data (271, 242 consultations) from all Dutch STI clinics;18 (3) 1610 community samples of MSM in Thailand;19 (4) 393 MSM attending STD and HIV care clinics in the USA;20 (5) 179 MSM with HIV in the USA;21 and (6) 3049 MSM attending a health centre in the USA16 (Supplementary Table S1). To ensure the generalisability of our models, we calibrated the model using six site-specific datasets individually.
Transmission framework
We developed population-level, susceptible-infected-susceptible compartmental models based on some published site-specific models.7,8,16,22,23 According to N. gonorrhoeae infection status, the model incorporated eight states, including susceptible, infection at the oropharynx only, infection at the urethra only, infection at the anorectum only, infection at both oropharynx and urethra, infection at both oropharynx and rectum, infection at both urethra and anorectum, and infection at all three anatomical sites (Supplementary Fig. S1).
Simulation of baseline transmission routes for N. gonorrhoeae infections
Our model simulated seven baseline N. gonorrhoeae transmission routes (Fig. 1). These included four sexual practices: anal sex (urethra to anorectum and anorectum to the urethra), penile–oral sex (oropharynx to urethra and urethra to oropharynx), rimming (oropharynx to anorectum and anorectum to oropharynx), and kissing (oropharynx to oropharynx). These also included three combined sequential sex practices: oral sex followed by anal sex (where the penis acts as a mediator and carries N. gonorrhoeae to the oropharynx or anorectum or vice versa), using saliva as a lubricant for anal sex (pass N. gonorrhoeae from his oropharynx to his urethra) and oral sex followed by oral–anal sex (rimming) or vice versa (oropharynx acts as a mediator and carries N. gonorrhoeae to the urethra or anorectum.
Simulation of masturbation
Our model included both solo masturbation and mutual masturbation (Fig. 1). The first sexual practice is when a man uses saliva as a lubricant for solo masturbation. An individual’s saliva transmits N. gonorrhoeae from their oropharynx to their urethra in this route. The second sexual practice is using saliva as a lubricant for mutual masturbation. A man’s saliva transmits N. gonorrhoeae from his oropharynx to his partner’s urethra in this route. Further details are provided in the Supplementary materials.
Model construction
We established three models to examine the effect of masturbation on the transmission of N. gonorrhoeae (Fig. 1). We used our published N. gonorrhoeae model as the baseline model (Model 1).7 Model 1 included four sexual practices and three sequential sex practices described in the previous section about baseline transmission routes. In Model 2, we added masturbation to Model 1. To compare the importance of masturbation and sequential sexual practices, we built Model 3. In Model 3, we included only the four sexual practices from Model 1 (oral sex, anal sex, rimming and kissing) and masturbation and excluded the three sequential sex practices. The purpose of this design is to investigate if masturbation alone may explain the multi-site coinfection of N. gonorrhoeae without the inclusion of sequential sexual practices.
Model parameterisation and calibration
We used previously published sexual practices and N. gonorrhoeae infection progression data for our models’ parameters (Supplementary Table S2). In our analysis, we sampled the parameter space using Latin Hypercube Sampling (LHS) on ranges of parameter values. Calibration is performed with LHS as the initial point, and 1000 parameter sets are simulated. For each set, we simulated the transmission to obtain the equilibrium prevalence at each anatomical site (i.e. oropharynx, urethra, and anorectum) and multi-site infection (i.e. oropharynx and urethra, oropharynx and anorectum, urethra and anorectum, all three sites). This is compared with the actual data to define the goodness of fit. We use fmincon based on trust-region-reflective to minimise the root mean squared error (RMSE) for each of the 1000 simulations.24 Out of these simulations, we sorted the simulation outputs in descending order, and 10% of simulations were regarded as the calibrated model estimates to the epidemic trend and used to generate the model outputs with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Based on our previously reported method,7,8,22 we estimated the incidence at any given time and calculated the ratio between the number of new infections and the number of susceptible individuals. The model parameters, model calibration process and data sources have been described in detail in our previous publications.7,8,22
Statistical analysis
We measured the calibration error by calculating the RMSE and compared models using the minimal RSME between the empirical multi-site infections data and the corresponding calibration results. We also conducted an independent-samples t-test to analyse the difference in RSME between the two models. The difference was statistically significant at P < 0.05. Additionally, to calculate the effect size, we used Cohen’s d to estimate the effect size of RMSE between two models.25–27 Effect sizes were classified as small (Cohen’s d = 0.2), medium (Cohen’s d = 0.5), and large (Cohen’s d ≥ 0.8).25 When P < 0.05 and the difference has a large effect size (Cohen’s d ≥ 0.8), we consider the two models as being significantly different. We used MATLAB R2019a (The MathWorks, Inc.) to solve the system of differential equations and conduct statistical analysis.
Sensitivity analysis
Due to the variations in the duration of sexual practices performed by MSM,8 we conducted eight univariate sensitivity analyses for the models over the frequency of solo masturbation and mutual masturbation, and the proportion of saliva used for solo masturbation and proportion of saliva use for mutual masturbation. Sensitivity analysis was performed using the LHS method to confirm the model’s robustness concerning small parameter perturbations.28 We performed eight sensitivity analyses for all six datasets (Supplementary Table S3). Details are given in the Supplementary material section.
Ethics approval
This study involved secondary data analysis of datasets obtained from previous publications, and therefore ethical approval was not required.
Results
We constructed Model 2 by adding masturbation as a transmission route to Model 1. Model 2 could replicate single site infection at the oropharynx, urethra and anorectum and multi-site infection in six different datasets. The calibration of Model 2, with regard to the simulated prevalence distribution, is similar to Model 1 across all six datasets (Supplementary Fig. S2). We built a third Model (model 3) by removing sequential sexual practices from Model 1 and then adding masturbation. Model 3 could replicate oropharyngeal, urethral and anorectal prevalence at single anatomical sites, but underestimated the prevalence in men with multi-site infections at both the oropharynx and anorectum across the six datasets.
Our findings demonstrated that the addition of masturbation (Model 2) to the baseline model (Model 1) could replicate both single and multi-site prevalence levels from empirical studies (Fig. 2), but did not improve the calibration. For only two data sets, Model 2 (adding masturbation to Model 1) had a significantly higher RMSE than Model 1, and the effect size of the RMSE was large (Cohen’s d > 0.8). Taken together, the calibration of Model 2 was not significantly different from Model 1 across four of the six datasets. (Fig. 2; Supplementary Table S4).
Our findings demonstrated that inclusion of masturbation, but removing sequential sexual practices from the model (Model 3), could not replicate the empirical prevalence and incurred large errors during calibration. Model 3 had a significantly higher RMSE than Model 1 (P-value < 0.01 for all six datasets), and the effective size of the RMSE between Model 3 and Model 1 was large (Cohen’s d > 0.8 for all six datasets). Similarly, Model 3 had a significantly higher RMSE than Model 2 (P-value < 0.01 for all six datasets), and the effective size of the RMSE was also large (Cohen’s d > 0.8 for all six datasets) (Fig. 2; Supplementary Table S4).
We used calibrated models (Models 2 and 3) to estimate the incidence of gonorrhoea caused by masturbation (Fig. 2). The estimated proportion of the incidence from Model 2 caused by masturbation was between 5.2% (95% CI 3.2–10.1%) and 10.6% (95% CI 5.8–17.3%). Importantly, solo masturbation accounted for the majority of all new cases caused by masturbation (4.9% [95% CI 3.0–9.4%] to 9.7% [95% CI 4.5–17.3%] across six datasets), whereas mutual masturbation accounted only for a small proportion (0.2% [95% CI 0.0–2.0%] to 0.6% [95% CI 0.0–5.4%] across six datasets) (Fig. 3; Supplementary Table S5).
Compared with Model 1, Model 2 included masturbation that did not significantly alter the proportion of gonorrhoea incidence at the oropharynx, urethra or anorectum across the six datasets. However, Model 3 (removal of sequential sexual practices and adding in of masturbation to Model 1) significantly altered the proportion of gonorrhoea incidence at the oropharynx, urethra and anorectum across three datasets. In Model 1, the incidence of gonorrhoea infection varied by anatomic site (oropharyngeal: 33.9–59.8%; anorectal: 18.6–29.9%; urethral: 18.5–36.3%), across six datasets. This was also the case for Model 2, the incidence of gonorrhoea infection varied by anatomic site (oropharyngeal: 32.8–59.0%; anorectal: 17.0–28.4%; urethral: 19.8–29.6%), across six datasets. In Model 3, the incidence of gonorrhoea infection varied by anatomic site (oropharyngeal: 21.3–51.7%; anorectal: 14.0–30.7%; urethral: 28.3–58.8%), across six datasets. The model predicted that about one in four cases of urethral gonorrhoea might arise from masturbation (Fig. 4; Supplementary Table S6).
Sensitivity analysis
The results of sensitivity analysis showed that our findings are robust to the model structure and model parameters. The results also showed that varying frequency of masturbation and the proportion of saliva use for masturbation did not alter our conclusions related to Model 2 calibration (Supplementary Fig. S3). Sensitivity analysis of the RMSE and effect size of calibrated Model 2 across six different datasets showed similar results, and Cohen’s d statistic was <0.8 across five datasets. We only found Cohen’s d > 0.8 in one sensitivity analysis of a dataset (increased the proportion of saliva use for mutual masturbation to double) (Supplementary Fig. S4).
Discussion
This is the first mathematical modelling study to explore the transmission of N. gonorrhoeae during masturbation. Our study shows that including saliva as a lubricant for masturbation could replicate the prevalence of N. gonorrhoeae at the oropharynx, urethra, and anorectum in MSM, but the calibration was not significantly different from our previously validated models across four of six datasets. When we included masturbation, the proportion of incident infections attributable to masturbation was relatively low compared to other sexual practices. Our model predicted that about one in four cases of urethral gonorrhoea might arise from masturbation, if indeed it transmitted gonorrhoea. To the best of our knowledge, no empirical data have been published to assess the role of masturbation and saliva use for potentially transmitting N. gonorrhoeae. This hypothesis was only recently generated following some unexpected findings from a randomised controlled trial.29 However, it would seem that this potential route of transmission was relatively plausible given that saliva is commonly used for masturbation, and it is relatively easy to culture N. gonorrhoeae from saliva. This is an important area to explore because it contributes to the knowledge base about transmission and may lead to further interventions to control N. gonorrhoeae. Future empirical studies will be needed to confirm our model findings.
Our models raise the possibility that masturbation may play a role in transmitting N. gonorrhoeae, although the models also indicate that it may not necessarily be a transmission route. In our previous model, when saliva was used as a lubricant for anal sex, it improved the model, but unlike masturbation, some empirical studies support transmission when saliva is used as a lubricant for anal sex.30–32 It would seem probable that if saliva can transit N. gonorrhoeae to the anus when used as a lubricant, some transmission may occur when saliva is used for masturbation.
We found that the calibration of Model 2 was similar to Model 1. Although Model 2 had a significantly higher RMSE than Model 1 for five of the six datasets, the Cohen’s d statistic was >0.8 for only two data sets. However, when considering these, it is important to reflect on how little is known about how saliva is used either as a lubricant for anal sex or masturbation, including the quantity used, exact site on the penis in relation to the urethra and the duration of use. It is premature to be too definite about the likelihood of any transmission from saliva in this context. Future empirical studies will be needed to confirm or refute the findings of our models.
If saliva use during masturbation had a role in the transmission of N. gonorrhoeae, its role would likely be relatively minor. Indeed, our results suggest that the inclusion of masturbation would not significantly alter the proportion of incident gonorrhoea occurring at the three anatomical sites; the oropharynx, urethra and anorectum. When we included masturbation, the incidence of urethral infection from any site did not change greatly because the extra number of urethra infections as a result of saliva use during masturbation resulted in a fall in urethral cases acquired from other sites (throat from oral sex or anus from anal sex). Our model estimates that perhaps one-quarter of urethral infection cases were the result of saliva use druing masturbation as compared with other sites; however, these infection cases may have a longer incubation period than urethral cases acquired directly from the partner, presumably because N. gonorrhoeae would first need to be acquired in the oropharynx and then transmitted to the urethra.7 The duration of most oropharyngeal infections is short,33 and infection is self-limited, so these cases would likely occur within a few weeks after the initial contact and therefore not raise questions for clinicians about transmission.
We also created a third model that excluded sequential sexual practices but included masturbation, and found that this model worsened the calibration. These results indicated that sequential sexual practices are more important for transmitting N. gonorrhoeae than masturbation. The present study revealed that sequential sexual practices might be important for the high proportion of N. gonorrhoeae multi-site infections. A previous survey reported that the majority of MSM performed sequential sexual practices in the same sexual encounter.34 Under this context, we hope our work could encourage further empirical research to explore the role of sequential sexual practices on the transmission of N. gonorrhoeae.
The role of using saliva as a medium in the transmission of N. gonorrhoeae is a relatively new concept, apart from some case reports >50 years ago that suggested that kissing may transmit N. gonorrhoeae.35,36 Saliva is widely distributed when men have sex together through kissing, using it as a lubricant, and through rimming, and there are varying degrees of evidence to suggest that all of these activities transmit N. gonorrhoeae.35,36 Our work adds the possibility that masturbation involving the saliva may also play a role in the transmission of N. gonorrhoeae in MSM.6,37
There are some limitations to our study that should be noted. First, there are surprisingly little data about masturbation, including basic issues such as its frequency, duration, and exactly how saliva is used for solo masturbation or mutual masturbation. These uncertainties may affect the estimates that we generated in our models. Second, considerable social desirability bias is likely to be operating when studies try to estimate how commonly men masturbate, so we have taken estimates towards the upper end of published estimates. We have conducted sensitivity analyses for the models over the frequency of masturbation and the proportion of solo masturbation and mutual masturbation to address these uncertainties. Third, we acknowledge that we have built our models despite there being no evidence for (or against) masturbation transmitting N. gonorrhoeae, other than that N. gonorrhoeae is present in saliva and saliva is commonly used for lubrication during masturbation.29 We hope that our models will encourage more researchers to undertake some empirical studies to investigate this. Fourth, we acknowledge that there are considerable uncertainties in certain model parameters (e.g. the untreated duration of oropharyngeal and anorectal infections), which may influence estimates of transmission.16 A publication that is currently available online has reported a shorter duration of rectal gonorrhoea (9 weeks)38 than we used in our model or what previous studies had reported (49 weeks).7,8 Fig. 1 in this paper shows that the duration estimate was based on seven cases, of which five lasted between 2 and 3 weeks38 and, therefore, as the authors mention, may not represent true infection. Therefore, we have not changed our results to include this shorter duration; however, if our model did include a shorter duration of rectal infection, the nett effect would be greater transmissibility of gonorrhoea from the oropharynx and urethra to maintain the infection prevalence. Hence, saliva use during masturbation is likely to play an even more important role for gonorrhoea transmission in MSM. Finally, we used six epidemiology datasets of N. gonorrhoeae with single-site infection and multi-site infection in MSM to test our models, which may not fully represent the MSM population.
Conclusion
In conclusion, saliva as a lubricant for masturbation may be a potential transmission route of gonorrhoea. However, considering the finding that men commonly use saliva as a lubricant for masturbation and that viable N. gonorrhoeae is often present in saliva among men with oropharyngeal gonorrhoea, it is reasonable to assume it may occur.35,36 Given the marked paucity of data on masturbation and the increasing incidence of gonorrhoea at the population level, it would seem sensible that investigators explored the transmission of gonorrhoea through saliva and particularly the possibility of transmission when saliva is used as a lubricant for masturbation.
Supplementary material
Supplementary material is available online.
Data availability
All data analysed during this study are included in this article and its supplementary files.
Conflicts of interest
Eric Chow, Jason Ong, Jane Hocking and Lei Zhang are Joint Editors and Christopher K. Fairley is an editor for Sexual Health. The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Declaration of funding
EPFC is supported by an Australian National Health and Medical Research Council Emerging Leadership Investigator Grant (grant number: GNT1172873). CKF is supported by an Australian National Health and Medical Research Council Leadership Investigator Grant (grant number: GNT1172900). MWS was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (grant number: 12171387, 11801435), China Postdoctoral Science Foundation (grant number: 2018M631134, 2020T130095ZX), the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (grant number: xjh012019055, xzy032020026), Natural Science Basic Research Program of Shaanxi Province (grant number: 2019JQ-187), and Young Talent Support Program of Shaanxi University Association for Science and Technology (grant number: 20210307). JJO is supported by an Australian National Health and Medical Research Council early career fellowship (grant number: APP1104781). LZ is supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (grant number: 8191101420), Thousand Talents Plan Professorship for Young Scholars (grant number: 3111500001), and Xi’an Jiaotong University Young Talent Support Program; Xi’an Jiaotong University Basic Research and Profession Grant (grant number: xtr022019003).
Acknowledgements
We thank Mark Chung at the Melbourne Sexual Health Centre for his assistance with preparing figures.
References
[1] Rowley J, Taylor M. Chlamydia, gonorrhoea, trichomoniasis and syphilis: global and regional estimates of prevalence and incidence, 2016. Bull World Health Organ 2019; 97 548–62.| Chlamydia, gonorrhoea, trichomoniasis and syphilis: global and regional estimates of prevalence and incidence, 2016.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 31384073PubMed |
[2] Chow EPF, Grulich AE, Fairley CK. Epidemiology and prevention of sexually transmitted infections in men who have sex with men at risk of HIV. Lancet HIV 2019; 6 e396–405.
| Epidemiology and prevention of sexually transmitted infections in men who have sex with men at risk of HIV.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 31006612PubMed |
[3] Fairley CK, Cornelisse VJ, Hocking JS, Chow EPF. Models of gonorrhoea transmission from the mouth and saliva. Lancet Infect Dis 2019; 19 e360–6.
| Models of gonorrhoea transmission from the mouth and saliva.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 31324517PubMed |
[4] Fairley CK, Hocking JS, Zhang L, Chow EPF. Frequent transmission of gonorrhea in men who have sex with men. Emerg Infect Dis 2017; 23 102–4.
| Frequent transmission of gonorrhea in men who have sex with men.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 27983487PubMed |
[5] Hook EW, Bernstein K. Kissing, saliva exchange, and transmission of Neisseria gonorrhoeae. Lancet Infect Dis 2019; 19 e367–9.
| Kissing, saliva exchange, and transmission of Neisseria gonorrhoeae.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 31324518PubMed |
[6] Chow EP, Fairley CK. The role of saliva in gonorrhoea and chlamydia transmission to extragenital sites among men who have sex with men: new insights into transmission. J Int AIDS Soc 2019; 22 e25354
| The role of saliva in gonorrhoea and chlamydia transmission to extragenital sites among men who have sex with men: new insights into transmission.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 31468730PubMed |
[7] Xu X, Chow EPF, Ong JJ, Hoebe C, Williamson D, Shen M, et al. Modelling the contribution that different sexual practices involving the oropharynx and saliva have on Neisseria gonorrhoeae infections at multiple anatomical sites in men who have sex with men. Sex Transm Infect 2021; 97 183–9.
| Modelling the contribution that different sexual practices involving the oropharynx and saliva have on Neisseria gonorrhoeae infections at multiple anatomical sites in men who have sex with men.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 33208511PubMed |
[8] Zhang L, Regan DG, Chow EPF, Gambhir M, Cornelisse V, Grulich A, et al. Neisseria gonorrhoeae transmission among men who have sex with men: an anatomical site-specific mathematical model evaluating the potential preventive impact of mouthwash. Sex Transm Infect 2017; 44 586–92.
| Neisseria gonorrhoeae transmission among men who have sex with men: an anatomical site-specific mathematical model evaluating the potential preventive impact of mouthwash.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[9] Dodge B, Reece M, Herbenick D, Schick V, Sanders SA, Fortenberry JD. Sexual health among U.S. black and hispanic men and women: a nationally representative study. J Sex Med 2010; 7 330–45.
| Sexual health among U.S. black and hispanic men and women: a nationally representative study.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 21029389PubMed |
[10] Chow EPF, Williamson DA, Hocking JS, Law MG, Maddaford K, Bradshaw CS, et al. Antiseptic mouthwash for gonorrhoea prevention (OMEGA): a randomised, double-blind, parallel-group, multicentre trial. Lancet Infect Dis 2021; 21 647–56.
| Antiseptic mouthwash for gonorrhoea prevention (OMEGA): a randomised, double-blind, parallel-group, multicentre trial.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 33676595PubMed |
[11] Kilner A, Fairley CK, Burrell S, Bradshaw CS, Chen MY, Chow EPF. Age pattern of sexual activities with the most recent partner among men who have sex with men in Melbourne, Australia: a cross-sectional study. BMJ Sex Reprod Health 2021; 47 e4
| Age pattern of sexual activities with the most recent partner among men who have sex with men in Melbourne, Australia: a cross-sectional study.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 32868336PubMed |
[12] Hallqvist L, Lindgren S. Gonorrhoea of the throat at a venereological clinic. Incidence and results of treatment. Br J Vener Dis 1975; 51 395–7.
| Gonorrhoea of the throat at a venereological clinic. Incidence and results of treatment.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1218364PubMed |
[13] Chow EPF, Lee D, Tabrizi SN, Phillips S, Snow A, Cook S, et al. Detection of Neisseria gonorrhoeae in the pharynx and saliva: implications for gonorrhoea transmission. Sex Transm Infect 2016; 92 347–9.
| Detection of Neisseria gonorrhoeae in the pharynx and saliva: implications for gonorrhoea transmission.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[14] Hutt DM, Judson FN. Epidemiology and treatment of oropharyngeal gonorrhea. Ann Intern Med 1986; 104 655–8.
| Epidemiology and treatment of oropharyngeal gonorrhea.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 2938529PubMed |
[15] Chow EP, Tabrizi SN, Phillips S, Lee D, Bradshaw CS, Chen MY, et al. Neisseria gonorrhoeae bacterial DNA load in the pharynges and saliva of men who have sex with men. J Clin Microbiol 2016; 54 2485–90.
| Neisseria gonorrhoeae bacterial DNA load in the pharynges and saliva of men who have sex with men.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 27413195PubMed |
[16] Spicknall IH, Mayer KH, Aral SO, Romero-Severson EO. Assessing uncertainty in an anatomical site-specific gonorrhea transmission model of men who have sex with men. Sex Transm Dis 2019; 46 321–8.
| Assessing uncertainty in an anatomical site-specific gonorrhea transmission model of men who have sex with men.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 30516722PubMed |
[17] Tabesh M, Fairley CK, Hocking JS, Williamson DA, Zhang L, Xu X, et al. Comparison of the patterns of chlamydia and gonorrhoea at the oropharynx, anorectum and urethra among men who have sex with men. Sex Transm Infect 2021; sextrans-2020-054632
| Comparison of the patterns of chlamydia and gonorrhoea at the oropharynx, anorectum and urethra among men who have sex with men.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 33436503PubMed |
[18] van Liere GAFS, Dukers-Muijrers NHTM, Kuizenga-Wessel SK, Götz HM, Hoebe CJPA. What is the optimal testing strategy for oropharyngeal Neisseria gonorrhoeae in men who have sex with men? Comparing selective testing versus routine universal testing from Dutch STI clinic data (2008–2017). Clin Infect Dis 2020; 71 944–51.
| What is the optimal testing strategy for oropharyngeal Neisseria gonorrhoeae in men who have sex with men? Comparing selective testing versus routine universal testing from Dutch STI clinic data (2008–2017).Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 31556949PubMed |
[19] Hiransuthikul A, Sungsing T, Jantarapakde J, Trachunthong D, Mills S, Vannakit R, et al. Correlations of chlamydia and gonorrhoea among pharyngeal, rectal and urethral sites among Thai men who have sex with men: multicentre community-led test and treat cohort in Thailand. BMJ Open 2019; 9 e028162
| Correlations of chlamydia and gonorrhoea among pharyngeal, rectal and urethral sites among Thai men who have sex with men: multicentre community-led test and treat cohort in Thailand.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 31253622PubMed |
[20] Pol BVD. Extragenital CT/GC in MSM. In ‘The 20th international union against sexually transmitted infections – Asia pacific conference (IUSTI-AP), 23–26 October 2019, Shanghai, China’.
[21] Footman A, Dionne-Odom J, Aaron KJ, Raper JL, Van Der Pol B. Performance of 4 molecular assays for detection of chlamydia and gonorrhea in a sample of human immunodeficiency virus-positive men who have sex with men. Sex Transm Dis 2020; 47 158–61.
| Performance of 4 molecular assays for detection of chlamydia and gonorrhea in a sample of human immunodeficiency virus-positive men who have sex with men.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 32032316PubMed |
[22] Xu X, Chow EPF, Ong JJ, Hoebe CJPA, Zou Z, Hocking JS, et al. Chlamydia trachomatis transmission between the oropharynx, urethra and anorectum in men who have sex with men: a mathematical model. BMC Med 2020; 18 326
| Chlamydia trachomatis transmission between the oropharynx, urethra and anorectum in men who have sex with men: a mathematical model.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 33198750PubMed |
[23] 23.
Xu X, Chow EPF, Regan D, Ong JJ, Gray RT, Zhou P, et al. Xu X, Chow EPF, Regan D, Ong JJ, Gray RT, Zhou P, et al. Role of saliva use during masturbation in the transmission of Chlamydia trachomatis in men who have sex with men. Epidemiology and Infection 2021; 149 e216
| Role of saliva use during masturbation in the transmission of Chlamydia trachomatis in men who have sex with men.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[24] Onwubu SC, Mdluli PS, Singh S, Collins OC. The application of the logistic equation model to predict the remineralization characteristics of desensitizing paste. Int J Dent 2019; 2019 7528154
| The application of the logistic equation model to predict the remineralization characteristics of desensitizing paste.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 31687027PubMed |
[25] Sullivan GM, Feinn R. Using effect size—or why the P value is not enough. J Grad Med Educ 2012; 4 279–82.
| Using effect size—or why the P value is not enough.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 23997866PubMed |
[26] Bettinardi RG. computeCohen_d(x1, x2, varargin). 2020. Available at: https://au.mathworks.com/matlabcentral/fileexchange/62957-computecohen_d-x1-x2-varargin
[27] Durlak JA. How to select, calculate, and interpret effect sizes. J Pediatr Psychol 2009; 34 917–28.
| How to select, calculate, and interpret effect sizes.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 19223279PubMed |
[28] DeMarino C, Cowen M, Pleet ML, Pinto DO, Khatkar P, Erickson J, et al. Differences in transcriptional dynamics between t-cells and macrophages as determined by a three-state mathematical model. Sci Rep 2020; 10 2227
| Differences in transcriptional dynamics between t-cells and macrophages as determined by a three-state mathematical model.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 32042107PubMed |
[29] Reece M, Herbenick D, Schick V, Sanders SA, Dodge B, Fortenberry JD. Sexual behaviors, relationships, and perceived health among adult men in the United States: results from a national probability sample. J Sex Med 2010; 7 291–304.
| Sexual behaviors, relationships, and perceived health among adult men in the United States: results from a national probability sample.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 21029386PubMed |
[30] Chow EPF, Cornelisse VJ, Read TRH, Lee D, Walker S, Hocking JS, et al. Saliva use as a lubricant for anal sex is a risk factor for rectal gonorrhoea among men who have sex with men, a new public health message: a cross-sectional survey. Sex Transm Infect 2016; 92 532–6.
| Saliva use as a lubricant for anal sex is a risk factor for rectal gonorrhoea among men who have sex with men, a new public health message: a cross-sectional survey.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 26941362PubMed |
[31] Chow EPF, Cornelisse VJ, Read TRH, Chen MY, Bradshaw CS, Fairley CK. Saliva use in sex: associations with use of smartphone dating applications in men who have sex with men. Int J STD AIDS 2018; 29 362–6.
| Saliva use in sex: associations with use of smartphone dating applications in men who have sex with men.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[32] Cornelisse VJ, Fairley CK, Read TRH, Lee D, Walker S, Hocking JS, et al. Associations between anorectal chlamydia and oroanal sex or saliva use as a lubricant for anal sex: a cross-sectional survey. Sex Transm Dis 2018; 45 506–10.
| Associations between anorectal chlamydia and oroanal sex or saliva use as a lubricant for anal sex: a cross-sectional survey.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 29465648PubMed |
[33] Chow EPF, Vodstrcil LA, Williamson DA, Maddaford K, Hocking JS, Ashcroft M, et al. Incidence and duration of incident oropharyngeal gonorrhoea and chlamydia infections among men who have sex with men: prospective cohort study. Sex Transm Infect 2021; 97 452–7.
| Incidence and duration of incident oropharyngeal gonorrhoea and chlamydia infections among men who have sex with men: prospective cohort study.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 33208509PubMed |
[34] Rosenberger JG, Reece M, Schick V, Herbenick D, Novak DS, Van Der Pol B, et al. Sexual behaviors and situational characteristics of most recent male-partnered sexual event among gay and bisexually identified men in the United States. J Sex Med 2011; 8 3040–50.
| Sexual behaviors and situational characteristics of most recent male-partnered sexual event among gay and bisexually identified men in the United States.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 21883941PubMed |
[35] Fairley CK, Cornelisse VJ, Hocking JS, Chow EPF. Models of gonorrhoea transmission from the mouth and saliva. Lancet Infect Dis 2019; 19 e360–6.
| Models of gonorrhoea transmission from the mouth and saliva.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 31324517PubMed |
[36] Willmott FE. Transfer of gonococcal pharyngitis by kissing? Br J Vener Dis 1974; 50 317–8.
| Transfer of gonococcal pharyngitis by kissing?Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 4424151PubMed |
[37] Zhang K, Li D, Li H, Beck EJ. Changing sexual attitudes and behaviour in China: implications for the spread of HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases. AIDS Care 1999; 11 581–9.
| Changing sexual attitudes and behaviour in China: implications for the spread of HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 10755033PubMed |
[38] Barbee LA, Khosropour CM, Soge OO, Hughes JP, Haglund M, Yeung W, et al. The natural history of rectal gonococcal and chlamydial infections: the exgen study. Clin Infect Dis 2021; ciab680
| The natural history of rectal gonococcal and chlamydial infections: the exgen study.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 34355734PubMed |