International Journal of Epidemiology 2002;31:891-893
© International Epidemiological Association 2002
Editorial |
What should we do about screening for genital chlamydia?
a Department of Social Medicine, University of Bristol, UK.
b Institute for Social and Preventive Medicine, University of Berne, Switzerland.
Dr Low, Department of Social Medicine, University of Bristol, Canynge Hall, Whiteladies Road, Bristol BS8 2PR, UK. E-mail: nicola.low@bristol.ac.uk
| The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below. |
Chlamydia trachomatis is the world’s most common bacterial sexually transmitted infection, with an estimated 89 million new cases each year.1 Genital chlamydia poses a major global public health problem because it is a transmissible cause of severe reproductive morbidity, including pelvic inflammatory disease, impaired fertility and ectopic pregnancy in women.2 Chlamydia can be cured with antibiotics and transmission prevented by treating sexual partners, but most infections are asymptomatic so they remain undiagnosed. Early diagnosis is possible, with DNA amplification techniques now providing highly sensitive and specific tests3 that are more acceptable to patients than previous methods because they can be performed on non-invasively collected genital specimens. Probably more than any other single factor, these technological advances in chlamydial diagnosis are driving the current health policy debate about the introduction of national chlamydia screening programmes.4,5 But do we have enough evidence about the effectiveness of screening and about the natural history
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  J.A. Land, J.E.A.M. Van Bergen, S.A. Morre, and M.J. Postma Epidemiology of Chlamydia trachomatis infection in women and the cost-effectiveness of screening Hum. Reprod. Update, October 14, 2009; (2009) dmp035v1. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 N. Low, N. Bender, L. Nartey, A. Shang, and J. M. Stephenson Effectiveness of chlamydia screening: systematic review Int. J. Epidemiol., April 1, 2009; 38(2): 435 - 448. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 W. Sorensen Commentary on "Prevalence and risk factors for Chlamydia trachomatis infection among cross-border truck drivers in Hong Kong" Sex Transm Inf, February 1, 2009; 85(1): 29 - 30. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
L A Wallace, A Scoular, G Hart, M Reid, P Wilson, and D J Goldberg What is the excess risk of infertility in women after genital chlamydia infection? A systematic review of the evidence Sex Transm Inf, June 1, 2008; 84(3): 171 - 175. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
S Sripada, S Logan, S McGillivray, H Mckenzie, A Templeton, M Hamilton, A Sutherland, and S Bhattacharya Opportunistic screening for Chlamydia trachomatis in men attending three different secondary healthcare settings Sex Transm Inf, July 1, 2007; 83(4): 282 - 285. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 N. C Campbell, E. Murray, J. Darbyshire, J. Emery, A. Farmer, F. Griffiths, B. Guthrie, H. Lester, P. Wilson, and A. L. Kinmonth Designing and evaluating complex interventions to improve health care BMJ, March 3, 2007; 334(7591): 455 - 459. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
N Low, M Egger, J A C Sterne, R M Harbord, F Ibrahim, B Lindblom, and B Herrmann Incidence of severe reproductive tract complications associated with diagnosed genital chlamydial infection: the Uppsala Women's Cohort Study. Sex Transm Inf, June 1, 2006; 82(3): 212 - 218. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
N Low Evaluating novel interventions for chlamydia screening. Sex Transm Inf, April 1, 2006; 82(2): 97 - 98. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
D P Novak and R B Karlsson Simplifying chlamydia testing: an innovative Chlamydia trachomatis testing approach using the internet and a home sampling strategy: population based study. Sex Transm Inf, April 1, 2006; 82(2): 142 - 147. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J A Cassell and N Low How can chlamydia diagnoses increase when their complications are declining? Sex Transm Inf, August 1, 2005; 81(4): 285 - 286. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. Macleod, C. Salisbury, N. Low, A. McCarthy, J. A C Sterne, A. Holloway, R. Patel, E. Sanford, A. Morcom, P. Horner, et al. Coverage and uptake of systematic postal screening for genital Chlamydia trachomatis and prevalence of infection in the United Kingdom general population: cross sectional study BMJ, April 23, 2005; 330(7497): 940. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 A. Senok, P. Wilson, M. Reid, A. Scoular, N. Craig, A. McConnachie, B. Fitzpatrick, and A. MacDonald Can we evaluate population screening strategies in UK general practice? A pilot randomised controlled trial comparing postal and opportunistic screening for genital chlamydial infection J Epidemiol Community Health, March 1, 2005; 59(3): 198 - 204. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J van Bergen, H M Gotz, J H Richardus, C J P A Hoebe, J Broer, A J T Coenen, and for the PILOT CT study group Prevalence of urogenital Chlamydia trachomatis increases significantly with level of urbanisation and suggests targeted screening approaches: results from the first national population based study in the Netherlands Sex Transm Inf, February 1, 2005; 81(1): 17 - 23. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 V. A. Moyer and M. Butler Gaps in the Evidence for Well-Child Care: A Challenge to Our Profession Pediatrics, December 1, 2004; 114(6): 1511 - 1521. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
N Low, A McCarthy, J Macleod, C Salisbury, P J Horner, T E Roberts, R Campbell, A Herring, S Skidmore, E Sanford, et al. The chlamydia screening studies: rationale and design Sex Transm Inf, October 1, 2004; 80(5): 342 - 348. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|