ArticleSexually transmitted infections2003
Opportunistic screening for genital chlamydial infection. I: acceptability of urine testing in primary and secondary healthcare settings.
Article in Sexually transmitted infections, 2003. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 41 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
41 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 123 citations in OpenAlex.
- Recommendation on screening for chlamydia and gonorrhea in primary care for individuals not known to be at high risk.CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2021Guideline
- Primary care integration of sexual and reproductive health services for chlamydia testing across WHO-Europe: a systematic review.BMJ open · 2019Pooled it
- Application of the COM-B model to barriers and facilitators to chlamydia testing in general practice for young people and primary care practitioners: a systematic review.Implementation science : IS · 2018Pooled it
- Obtaining self-samples to diagnose curable sexually transmitted infections: a systematic review of patients' experiences.PloS one · 2015Pooled it
- Implementing chlamydia screening: what do women think? A systematic review of the literature.BMC public health · 2006Pooled it
- Chlamydia trachomatis in the United Kingdom: a systematic review and analysis of prevalence studies.Sexually transmitted infections · 2004Pooled it
- Incentive payments to general practitioners aimed at increasing opportunistic testing of young women for chlamydia: a pilot cluster randomised controlled trial.BMC public health · 2010Trial
- Can we evaluate population screening strategies in UK general practice? A pilot randomised controlled trial comparing postal and opportunistic screening for genital chlamydial infection.Journal of epidemiology and community health · 2005Trial
- The chlamydia screening studies: rationale and design.Sexually transmitted infections · 2004Trial
- A nurse-led satellite clinic initiative for STI testing in an Australian correctional center: a qualitative study.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Article
- Accuracy of Curable Sexually Transmitted Infections and Genital Mycoplasmas Screening by Multiplex Real-Time PCR Using a Self-Collected Veil among Adult Women in Sub-Saharan Africa.Infectious diseases in obstetrics and gynecology · 2019Article
- Observational
- Article
- Perceptions of Self-Testing for Chlamydia: Understanding and Predicting Self-Test Use.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2016Article
- Exploring access and attitudes to regular sexually transmitted infection screening: the views of young, multi-ethnic, inner-city, female students.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2016Article
- Does screening for vaginal infection have an impact on pregnancy rates in intracytoplasmic sperm injection cycles?Turkish journal of obstetrics and gynecology · 2016Article
- Chlamydia screening in England: a qualitative study of the narrative behind the policy.BMC public health · 2012Article
- 'The difference in determinants of Chlamydia trachomatis and Mycoplasma genitalium in a sample of young Australian women'.BMC infectious diseases · 2011Article
- Testing for sexually transmitted infections in general practice: cross-sectional study.BMC public health · 2010Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo determine the acceptability of opportunistic screening for Chlamydia trachomatis in young people in a range of healthcare settings.
designAn opportunistic screening programme (1 September 1999 to 31 August 2000) using urine samples tested by ligase chain reaction (LCR). Data on uptake and testing were collected and in-depth interviews were used for programme evaluation.
settingGeneral practice, family planning, genitourinary medicine clinics, adolescent sexual health clinics, termination of pregnancy clinics, and women's services in hospitals (antenatal, colposcopy, gynaecology and infertility clinics) in two health authorities (Wirral and Portsmouth and South East Hampshire). Main participants: Sexually active women aged between 16 and 24 years attending healthcare settings for any reason.
main outcome measuresUptake data: proportion of women accepting a test by area, healthcare setting, and age; overall population coverage achieved in 1 year. Evaluation data: participants' attitudes and views towards opportunistic screening and urine testing.
resultsAcceptance of testing by women (16-24 years) was 76% in Portsmouth and 84% in Wirral. Acceptance was lower in younger women (Portsmouth only) and varied by healthcare setting within each site. 50% of the target female population were screened in Portsmouth and 39% in Wirral. Both the opportunistic offer of screening and the method of screening were universally acceptable. Major factors influencing a decision to accept screening were the non-invasive nature of testing and treatment, desire to protect future fertility, and the experimental nature of the screening programme.
conclusionsAn opportunistic model of urine screening for chlamydial infection is a practical, universally acceptable method of screening.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.