ArticleSexually transmitted infections2004
Modelling the healthcare costs of an opportunistic chlamydia screening programme.
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 9 papers, 2 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- One to one interventions to reduce sexually transmitted infections and under the age of 18 conceptions: a systematic review of the economic evaluations.Sexually transmitted infections · 2007Pooled it
- Screening for Chlamydia trachomatis: a systematic review of the economic evaluations and modelling.Sexually transmitted infections · 2006Pooled it
- Partner notification of chlamydia infection in primary care: randomised controlled trial and analysis of resource use.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2006Trial
- Analysis of laboratory testing results collected in an enhanced chlamydia surveillance system in Australia, 2008-2010.BMC infectious diseases · 2014Article
- Cost effectiveness of home based population screening for Chlamydia trachomatis in the UK: economic evaluation of chlamydia screening studies (ClaSS) project.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2007Article
- The cost effectiveness of opportunistic chlamydia screening in England.Sexually transmitted infections · 2007Article
- Healthcare and patient costs of a proactive chlamydia screening programme: the Chlamydia Screening Studies project.Sexually transmitted infections · 2007Article
- Focus on Chlamydia.Sexually transmitted infections · 2007Article
- Fitness cost due to mutations in the 16S rRNA associated with spectinomycin resistance in Chlamydia psittaci 6BC.Antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy · 2005Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo estimate the average cost per screening offer, cost per testing episode and cost per chlamydia positive episode for an opportunistic chlamydia screening programme (including partner management), and to explore the uncertainty of parameter assumptions, based on the costs to the healthcare system.
methodsA decision tree was constructed and parameterised using empirical data from a chlamydia screening pilot study and other sources. The model was run using baseline data from the pilot, and univariate and multivariate sensitivity analyses were conducted.
resultsThe total estimated cost for offering screening over 12 months to 33,215 females aged 16-24 was 493,412 pounds . The average cost (with partner management) was 14.88 pounds per screening offer (90% credibility interval (CI) 10.34 to 18.56), 21.83 pounds per testing episode (90% CI 18.16 to 24.20), and 38.36 pounds per positive episode (90% CI 33.97 to 42.25). The proportion of individuals accepting screening, the clinician (general practitioner/nurse) time and their relative involvement in discussing screening, the test cost, the time to notify patients of their results, and the receptionist time recruiting patients had the greatest impact on the outcomes in both the univariate and multivariate sensitivity analyses.
conclusionsResults from this costing study may be used to inform resource allocation for current and future chlamydia screening programme implementation.
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.