ArticleSexually transmitted infections2006
Screening for Chlamydia trachomatis in asymptomatic women attending outpatient clinics in a large maternity hospital in Dublin, Ireland.
Article in Sexually transmitted infections, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Lost opportunity to save newborn lives: variable national antenatal screening policies for Neisseria gonorrhoeae and Chlamydia trachomatis.International journal of STD & AIDS · 2017Article
- Screening for asymptomatic urogenital Chlamydia trachomatis infection at a large Dublin maternity hospital: results of a pilot study.Irish journal of medical science · 2017Article
- Prevalence of Chlamydia trachomatis infection in parturient women in Gipuzkoa, Northern Spain.SpringerPlus · 2016Article
- Knowledge and acceptability of Chlamydia trachomatis screening among pregnant women and their partners; a cross-sectional study.BMC public health · 2014Article
- Young pregnant women's views on the acceptability of screening for chlamydia as part of routine antenatal care.BMC public health · 2010Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundChlamydia trachomatis can cause a sexually transmitted infection, which, untreated, may result in considerable morbidity.
methodsA prevalence study was conducted for C trachomatis using nucleic acid amplification technology in asymptomatic women, and certain risk factors that may be used to direct future screening strategies were assessed.
resultsThe study population comprised 945 asymptomatic women, of whom 783 were attending antenatal clinics, 91 were attending infertility clinics and 71 were attending family planning clinics. An overall C trachomatis prevalence of 3.7% (35/945) was found, with the highest prevalence of 11.2% (22/196) in Irish single women aged <25 years. Logistic regression analysis showed that single status and age <25 years were independent, statistically significant predictors of C trachomatis infection.
conclusionThese results support routine screening of asymptomatic women who are sexually active and aged <25 years. An opportunist active screening of all sexually active women independent of age should be additionally considered if resources permit.
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.