ArticleSexually transmitted infections2004
Establishing the National Chlamydia Screening Programme in England: results from the first full year of screening.
Article in Sexually transmitted infections, 2004. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 53 papers, 3 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
53 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 180 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled 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
- Trial protocol: a parallel group, individually randomized clinical trial to evaluate the effect of a mobile phone application to improve sexual health among youth in Stockholm County.BMC public health · 2018Trial
- Effects of population based screening for Chlamydia infections in the Netherlands limited by declining participation rates.PloS one · 2013Trial
- Partner notification of chlamydia infection in primary care: randomised controlled trial and analysis of resource use.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2006Trial
- Article
- Exploring causal mechanisms and essential factors in the prevention and control of chlamydia in Guangdong, Southern China: a study protocol.BMC infectious diseases · 2023Article
- Review
- Will an outbreak exceed available resources for control? Estimating the risk from invading pathogens using practical definitions of a severe epidemic.Journal of the Royal Society, Interface · 2020Article
- Does infection withSexually transmitted infections · 2019Article
- Prevalence, risk factors, and medical costs of Chlamydia trachomatis infections in Shandong Province, China: a population-based, cross-sectional study.BMC infectious diseases · 2018Article
- Not again! Effect of previous test results, age group and reason for testing on (re-)infection with Chlamydia trachomatis in Germany.BMC infectious diseases · 2018Article
- Repeat testing for chlamydia trachomatis, a "safe approach" to unsafe sex? a qualitative exploration among youth in Stockholm.BMC health services research · 2017Article
- Exploring why a complex intervention piloted in general practices did not result in an increase in chlamydia screening and diagnosis: a qualitative evaluation using the fidelity of implementation model.BMC family practice · 2017Article
- Acceptability and Feasibility of Sexually Transmitted Infection Testing and Treatment among Pregnant Women in Gaborone, Botswana, 2015.BioMed research international · 2016Article
- Chlamydia trachomatis Infection in Pregnancy: The Global Challenge of Preventing Adverse Pregnancy and Infant Outcomes in Sub-Saharan Africa and Asia.BioMed research international · 2016Review
- Article
- Male infertility: a public health issue caused by sexually transmitted pathogens.Nature reviews. Urology · 2014Review
- Relative or absolute? A significant intervention for chlamydia screening with small absolute benefit.Sexually transmitted infections · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe phased implementation of the National Chlamydia Screening Programme (NCSP) began in September 2002. The NCSP offers opportunistic screening for chlamydia to women and men under 25 years of age attending clinical and non-clinical screening venues using non-invasive urine or vulvo-vaginal swab samples tested via nucleic acid amplification. This review describes the implementation of the NCSP, reports positivity rates for the first year, and explores risk factors for genital chlamydial infection.
methodsCross sectional study of the first year's screening data from the NCSP. A standardised core dataset for each screening test was collected from 302 screening venues, excluding genitourinary medicine (GUM) clinics, across 10 phase 1 programme areas. We estimated chlamydia positivity by demographic and behavioural characteristics, and investigated factors associated with infection through univariate and multivariate analyses.
resultsChlamydia positivity among people under 25 years of age screened in non-GUM settings was 10.1% (1538/15 241) in women and 13.3% (156/1172) in men. Risk factors varied by sex: for women-age 16-19, non-white ethnicity, and sexual behaviours were associated with infection; for men-only age 20-24 and non-white ethnicity were associated with infection. DISCUSSION: In the first phase of the NCSP, 16 413 opportunistic screens among young adults under 25 years of age were performed at non-GUM settings and testing volume increased over time. Rates of disease were similar to those found during the English screening pilot and were comparable to the first year of widespread screening in Sweden and the United States. The screening programme in England will continue to expand as further phases are included, with national coverage anticipated by 2008.
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.