ArticleCanadian journal of public health = Revue canadienne de sante publique
Upsurge of chlamydial reinfection in a large Canadian city: an indication of suboptimal chlamydia screening practices?
Article in Canadian journal of public health = Revue canadienne de sante publique. 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.
- Inequities inAmerican journal of public health · 2022Article
- Characterization of sexually transmitted infections, their pharmacological treatment, and recurrence in a Colombian population.Biomedica : revista del Instituto Nacional de Salud · 2021Observational
- Collateral Damage: Detrimental Effect of Antibiotics on the Development of Protective Immune Memory.mBio · 2016Review
- Enteric disease episodes and the risk of acquiring a future sexually transmitted infection: a prediction model in Montreal residents.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2016Article
- Spontaneous resolution of genital Chlamydia trachomatis infection in women and protection from reinfection.The Journal of infectious diseases · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesGiven the limited knowledge on chlamydial reinfection (CR) in Canada, we examined the extent and predictors of CR in Montréal, a large Canadian city.
methodsWe retrospectively studied all Montréal residents aged > or =10 years for whom > or =1 laboratory-confirmed chlamydial infection was reported to the public health department between 1988 and 2007 (n = 44,580). Each person was passively followed for two years after baseline infection or until reinfection. Socio-demographic factors and histories of other notifiable diseases were examined as potential predictors. Cox multivariate regression was used to model the time to CR. Survival analyses were stratified by age group (<25 vs. > or =25 years).
resultsWe estimated an overall two-year CR rate of 6.4%, an incidence density of 3.5 per 100 person-years, and a median time to reinfection of nine months. CR significantly increased over time. Among persons <25 years, reinfection was significantly more likely among females [adjusted hazard ratio (AHR): 1.58] and younger participants (10-14 years: AHR: 2.98; 15-19 years: AHR: 1.81). Residing within the South Central sector was deleterious for six months following initial infection after which it became protective. Among persons > or =25 years, a history of sexually transmitted infections increased the risk of reinfection (AHR: 1.79).
conclusionCR is a significant and growing problem in Montreal. The current recommendation for a single repeat screening six months posttreatment might be usefully complemented with additional screenings. Our results also underscore the importance of screening high-risk populations, particularly young women.
Indexed as
Identifiers
21214060PMC6974194What 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.