Trial reportJournal of epidemiology and community health2005
Can we evaluate population screening strategies in UK general practice? A pilot randomised controlled trial comparing postal and opportunistic screening for genital chlamydial infection.
Trial report in Journal of epidemiology and community health, 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 4 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 33 citations in OpenAlex.
- Screening for chlamydia and/or gonorrhea in primary health care: systematic reviews on effectiveness and patient preferences.Systematic reviews · 2021Pooled it
- 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
- The National Advisory Committee on Sexually Transmitted and Blood-Borne Infections (NAC-STBBI) Statement: Chlamydia and Gonorrhea screening recommendations for non-pregnant adults and adolescents.Canada communicable disease report = Releve des maladies transmissibles au Canada · 2026Article
- Article
- Continuous quality improvement methodology: a case study on multidisciplinary collaboration to improve chlamydia screening.Family medicine and community health · 2019Article
- Screening for genital chlamydia infection.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2016Review
- Home versus clinic-based specimen collection for Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhoeae.Expert review of anti-infective therapy · 2011Review
- Screening for sexually transmitted infections at home or in the clinic?Current opinion in infectious diseases · 2011Review
- Opportunistic screening for Chlamydia trachomatis in men attending three different secondary healthcare settings.Sexually transmitted infections · 2007Article
- Designing and evaluating complex interventions to improve health care.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2007Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
STUDY
objectiveTo assess whether opportunistic and postal screening strategies for Chlamydia trachomatis can be compared with usual care in a randomised trial in general practice.
designFeasibility study for a randomised controlled trial.
settingThree West of Scotland general medical practices: one rural, one urban/deprived, and one urban/affluent.
participants600 women aged 16-30 years, 200 from each of three participating practices selected at random from a sample of West of Scotland practices that had expressed interest in the study. The women could opt out of the study. Those who did not were randomly assigned to one of three groups: postal screening, opportunistic screening, or usual care.
results38% (85 of 221) of the approached practices expressed interest in the study. Data were collected successfully from the three participating practices. There were considerable workload implications for staff. Altogether 124 of the 600 women opted out of the study. During the four month study period, 55% (81 of 146) of the control group attended their practice but none was offered screening. Some 59% (80 of 136) women in the opportunistic group attended their practice of whom 55% (44 of 80) were offered screening. Of those, 64% (28 of 44) accepted, representing 21% of the opportunistic group. Forty eight per cent (59 of 124) of the postal group returned samples.
conclusionA randomised controlled trial comparing postal and opportunistic screening for chlamydial infection in general practice is feasible, although resource intensive. There may be problems with generalizing from screening trials in which patients may opt out from the offer 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.