ArticleBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2005
Coverage and uptake of systematic postal screening for genital Chlamydia trachomatis and prevalence of infection in the United Kingdom general population: cross sectional study.
Article in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 57 papers, 11 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
57 citing papers in PubMed, 11 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 131 citations in OpenAlex.
- Home-based versus clinic-based specimen collection in the management of Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhoeae infections.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2015Pooled it
- Chlamydia (uncomplicated, genital).BMJ clinical evidence · 2015Pooled it
- Genital chlamydia prevalence in Europe and non-European high income countries: systematic review and meta-analysis.PloS one · 2015Pooled it
- Chlamydia prevalence in the general population: is there a sex difference? a systematic review.BMC infectious diseases · 2013Pooled it
- Home-based chlamydia and gonorrhoea screening: a systematic review of strategies and outcomes.BMC public health · 2013Pooled it
- Non-participation in population-based disease prevention programs in general practice.BMC public health · 2012Pooled it
- The prevalence of Chlamydia trachomatis infection in Australia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC infectious diseases · 2012Pooled it
- Impact of Chlamydia trachomatis in the reproductive setting: British Fertility Society Guidelines for practice.Human fertility (Cambridge, England) · 2010Guideline
- Chlamydia (uncomplicated, genital).BMJ clinical evidence · 2010Pooled it
- Chlamydia (uncomplicated, genital).BMJ clinical evidence · 2008Pooled it
- Screening for Chlamydia trachomatis: a systematic review of the economic evaluations and modelling.Sexually transmitted infections · 2006Pooled it
- The Sexunzipped trial: optimizing the design of online randomized controlled trials.Journal of medical Internet research · 2013Trial
- Systematic screening with information and home sampling for genital Chlamydia trachomatis infections in young men and women in Norway: a randomized controlled trial.BMC infectious diseases · 2013Trial
- Effectiveness of yearly, register based screening for chlamydia in the Netherlands: controlled trial with randomised stepped wedge implementation.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2012Trial
- Home compared with clinic-based screening for sexually transmitted infections: a randomized controlled trial.Obstetrics and gynecology · 2010Trial
- Home screening for sexually transmitted diseases in high-risk young women: randomised controlled trial.Sexually transmitted infections · 2007Trial
- Partner notification of chlamydia infection in primary care: randomised controlled trial and analysis of resource use.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2006Trial
- Pilot postal birth cohort hepatitis C virus screening in UK primary care: HepCAPP study.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2025Article
- Utilisation of pharmacy-based sexual and reproductive health services: a quantitative retrospective study.Sexually transmitted infections · 2021Article
- Does infection withSexually transmitted infections · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo measure the coverage and uptake of systematic postal screening for genital Chlamydia trachomatis and the prevalence of infection in the general population in the United Kingdom. To investigate factors associated with these measures.
designCross sectional survey of people randomly selected from general practice registers. Invitation to provide a specimen collected at home.
settingEngland.
participants19,773 men and women aged 16-39 years invited to participate in screening.
main outcome measuresCoverage and uptake of screening; prevalence of chlamydia.
resultsCoverage of chlamydia screening was 73% and was lower in areas with a higher proportion of non-white residents. Uptake in 16-24 year olds was 31.5% and was lower in men, younger adults, and practices in disadvantaged areas. Overall prevalence of chlamydia was 2.8% (95%confidence interval 2.2% to 3.4%) in men and 3.6% (3.1% to 4.9%) in women, but it was higher in people younger than 25 years (men 5.1%; 4.0% to 6.3%; women 6.2%; 5.2% to 7.8%). Prevalence was higher in the subgroup of younger women who were harder to engage in screening. The strongest determinant of chlamydial infection was having one or more new sexual partners in the past year.
conclusionsPostal chlamydia screening was feasible, but coverage was incomplete and uptake was modest. Lower coverage of postal screening in areas with more non-white residents along with poorer uptake in more deprived areas and among women at higher risk of infection could mean that screening leads to wider inequalities in sexual health.
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.