ArticleSexually transmitted diseases2011
Cost-effectiveness analysis of Chlamydia trachomatis screening via internet-based self-collected swabs compared with clinic-based sample collection.
Article in Sexually transmitted diseases, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 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
31 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 44 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluation of Chlamydia trachomatis screening from the perspective of health economics: a systematic review.Frontiers in public health · 2023Pooled it
- Self-collection of samples as an additional approach to deliver testing services for sexually transmitted infections: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMJ global health · 2019Pooled it
- Bacterial Sexually Transmitted Disease Screening Outside the Clinic--Implications for the Modern Sexually Transmitted Disease Program.Sexually transmitted diseases · 2016Pooled it
- Evaluation of a Self-Test Technology for Chlamydia and Gonorrhea Testing: Observational Before-and-After Study.JMIR dermatology · 2026Observational
- Acceptability, Barriers, and Facilitators to Home-Based Syphilis Self-testing: A Scoping Review.AIDS and behavior · 2026Review
- Article
- Rapid Uptake of Testing for Chlamydia, Gonorrhea, and HIV From an Online Platform, April-October 2020.American journal of public health · 2022Article
- Intention to use and acceptability of home-based sexual health care among men who have sex with men who previously attended clinic-based sexual health care.Frontiers in reproductive health · 2022Article
- Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Michigan's School-Wide Sexually Transmitted Disease Screening Program in Four Detroit High Schools.The Journal of adolescent health : official publication of the Society for Adolescent Medicine · 2021Article
- Article
- Detection of Three Sexually Transmitted Infections by Anatomic Site: Evidence From an Internet-Based Screening Program.Sexually transmitted diseases · 2020Article
- An Analysis of User Survey Data for an Internet Program for Testing for Sexually Transmitted Infections, I Want the Kit, in Maryland and Washington, DC.Sexually transmitted diseases · 2019Article
- Acceptability of self-collecting oropharyngeal swabs for sexually transmissible infection testing among men and women.Sexual health · 2019Article
- Self care interventions for sexual and reproductive health and rights: costs, benefits, and financing.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2019Article
- Online testing for sexually transmitted infections: A whole systems approach to predicting value.PloS one · 2019Article
- Let's Take A "Selfie": Self-Collected Samples for Sexually Transmitted Infections.Sexually transmitted diseases · 2018Article
- Use of GetCheckedOnline, a Comprehensive Web-based Testing Service for Sexually Transmitted and Blood-Borne Infections.Journal of medical Internet research · 2017Article
- Cost-benefit analysis of Chlamydia trachomatis screening in pregnant women in a high burden setting in the United States.BMC infectious diseases · 2017Article
- Get Checked… Where? The Development of a Comprehensive, Integrated Internet-Based Testing Program for Sexually Transmitted and Blood-Borne Infections in British Columbia, Canada.JMIR research protocols · 2016Article
- Use of a risk quiz to predict infection for sexually transmitted infections: a retrospective analysis of acceptability and positivity.Sexually transmitted infections · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAlthough the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have recommended population-wide Chlamydia trachomatis screening of sexually active women less than 26 years of age, more than half of sexually active young women are not routinely screened. A Website (IWTK, www.iwantthekit.org), was developed in 2004 to promote home-based sample collection.
methodsA decision tree was designed to model a hypothetical cohort of 10,000 women per year who order an internet-based C. trachomatis screening kit. We compared the incremental cost-effectiveness of 2 screening strategies: self-sampling via the IWTK website, and traditional, clinic-based screening by the same cohort of women who used IWTK. Probabilities and costs were estimated for each node in the decision tree. Estimates were derived from primary data, published data, and unpublished health data.
resultsThe internet-based screening strategy prevented 35.5 more cases of pelvic inflammatory disease and saved an additional $41,000 in direct medical costs as compared with the clinic-based screening strategy.
conclusionOur model estimates demonstrated that an internet-based, self-swab screening strategy was cost-effective compared with the traditional, clinic-based screening strategy. Assuming that the popularity of the use of the internet as a resource for information about healthcare and sexually transmitted infections leads to an increased use of IWTK, the public health benefit of this cost-effective strategy will be even greater.
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.