ArticleBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2007
Cost effectiveness of home based population screening for Chlamydia trachomatis in the UK: economic evaluation of chlamydia screening studies (ClaSS) project.
Article in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 3 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, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 51 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluation of Chlamydia trachomatis screening from the perspective of health economics: a systematic review.Frontiers in public health · 2023Pooled it
- How robust are the natural history parameters used in chlamydia transmission dynamic models? A systematic review.Theoretical biology & medical modelling · 2014Pooled it
- Risk of pelvic inflammatory disease following Chlamydia trachomatis infection: analysis of prospective studies with a multistate model.American journal of epidemiology · 2013Pooled it
- Screening for sickle cell and thalassaemia in primary care: a cost-effectiveness study.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2011Trial
- Gonorrhoea and chlamydia diagnosis as an entry point for HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis: a modelling study.BMJ open · 2019Article
- Evaluating Cost-effectiveness of Interventions That Affect Fertility and Childbearing: How Health Effects Are Measured Matters.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2015Review
- Heterogeneity in risk of pelvic inflammatory diseases after chlamydia infection: a population-based study in Manitoba, Canada.The Journal of infectious diseases · 2014Article
- Vouchers versus Lotteries: What works best in promoting Chlamydia screening? A cluster randomised controlled trial.Applied economic perspectives and policy · 2014Article
- Incidence of Chlamydia trachomatis infection in women in England: two methods of estimation.Epidemiology and infection · 2014Article
- Screening for sexually transmitted infections at home or in the clinic?Current opinion in infectious diseases · 2011Review
- Management of Chlamydia trachomatis genital tract infection: screening and treatment challenges.Infection and drug resistance · 2011Article
- Cost-effectiveness analysis of Chlamydia trachomatis screening in Dutch pregnant women.Pathogens and global healthArticle
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 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo investigate the cost effectiveness of screening for Chlamydia trachomatis compared with a policy of no organised screening in the United Kingdom.
designEconomic evaluation using a transmission dynamic mathematical model.
settingCentral and southwest England.
participantsHypothetical population of 50,000 men and women, in which all those aged 16-24 years were invited to be screened each year.
main outcome measuresCost effectiveness based on major outcomes averted, defined as pelvic inflammatory disease, ectopic pregnancy, infertility, or neonatal complications.
resultsThe incremental cost per major outcome averted for a programme of screening women only (assuming eight years of screening) was 22,300 pounds (33,000 euros; $45,000) compared with no organised screening. For a programme screening both men and women, the incremental cost effectiveness ratio was approximately 28,900 pounds. Pelvic inflammatory disease leading to hospital admission was the most frequently averted major outcome. The model was highly sensitive to the incidence of major outcomes and to uptake of screening. When both were increased the cost effectiveness ratio fell to 6200 pound per major outcome averted for screening women only.
conclusionsProactive register based screening for chlamydia is not cost effective if the uptake of screening and incidence of complications are based on contemporary empirical studies, which show lower rates than commonly assumed. These data are relevant to discussions about the cost effectiveness of the opportunistic model of chlamydia screening being introduced in England.
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.