Evidence map›Paper›PMID 15681716›Full record

ArticleSexually transmitted infections2005

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.

J van Bergen, H M Götz, J H Richardus, C J P A Hoebe, J Broer, A J T Coenen, PILOT CT study group

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Sexually transmitted infections, 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT00283127 (Home Sampling Versus Conventional Sampling for Screening of Urogenital Chlamydia Trachomatis in Young Men and Women. - A Randomised Control Trial), which is not on this map. Cited by 63 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
63citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT00283127 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2006, after this paper: background citation

Home Sampling Versus Conventional Sampling for Screening of Urogenital Chlamydia Trachomatis in Young Men and Women. - A Randomised Control Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorNorwegian Institute of Public HealthRan2006 to 2006Enrolled41,719ConditionsChlamydia Trachomatis, Mass ScreeningArmsHome sampling (urine test) for uro-genital C.trachomatis.
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

63 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Does infection withSexually transmitted infections · 2019
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Sexually transmitted infections · 2018
    Article
  19. GenitalEuro surveillance : bulletin Europeen sur les maladies transmissibles = European communicable disease bulletin · 2018
    Article
  20. Article

3 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

J van BergenSTI AIDS the Netherlands, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. jvanbergen@soaaids.nl
H M Götz
J H Richardus
C J P A Hoebe
J Broer
A J T Coenen
PILOT CT study group

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesChlamydia trachomatis (Chlamydia) is the most prevalent sexually transmitted bacterial infection and can cause considerable reproductive morbidity in women. Chlamydia screening programmes have been considered but policy recommendations are hampered by the lack of population based data. This paper describes the prevalence of Chlamydia in 15-29 year old women and men in rural and urban areas, as determined through systematic population based screening organised by the Municipal Public Health Services (MHS), and discusses the implications of this screening strategy for routine implementation.

methodsStratified national probability survey according to "area address density" (AAD). 21 000 randomly selected women and men in four regions, aged 15-29 years received a home sampling kit. Urine samples were returned by mail and tested by polymerase chain reaction (PCR). Treatment was via the general practitioner, STI clinic, or MHS clinic.

results41% (8383) responded by sending in urine and questionnaire. 11% (2227) returned a refusal card. Non-responders included both higher and lower risk categories. Chlamydia prevalence was significantly lower in rural areas (0.6%, 95% CI 0.1 to 1.1) compared with very highly urbanised areas (3.2%, 95% CI 2.4 to 4.0). Overall prevalence was 2.0% (95% CI 1.7 to 2.3): 2.5% (95% CI 2.0 to 3.0%) in women and 1.5% (95% CI 1.1 to 1.8) in men. Of all cases 91% were treated. Infection was associated with degree of urbanisation, ethnicity, number of sex partners, and symptoms.

conclusionThis large, population based study found very low prevalence in rural populations, suggesting that nationwide systematic screening is not indicated in the Netherlands and that targeted approaches are a better option. Further analysis of risk profiles will contribute to determine how selective screening can be done.

Indexed as

Chlamydia trachomatisAdolescentAdultChlamydia InfectionsCondomsFemaleHumansMaleMass ScreeningNetherlandsPatient Acceptance of Health CarePolymerase Chain ReactionPrevalenceRegression AnalysisUrban Health

Identifiers

PMID15681716
PMCPMC1763744

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.