Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23158540›Full record

ArticleEpidemiology and infection2013

Testing for Chlamydia trachomatis: time trends in positivity rates in the canton of Basel-Stadt, Switzerland.

C Schmutz, D Burki, R Frei, M Mäusezahl-Feuz, D Mäusezahl

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Epidemiology and infection, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Who Is Best to Test? A Systematic Review of Chlamydia Infections in Switzerland.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Do changes in STEC diagnostics mislead interpretation of disease surveillance data in Switzerland? Time trends in positivity, 2007 to 2016.Euro surveillance : bulletin Europeen sur les maladies transmissibles = European communicable disease bulletin · 2020
    Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

C SchmutzSwiss Tropical and Public Health Institute, Basel, Switzerland.
D Burki
R Frei
M Mäusezahl-Feuz
D Mäusezahl

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

National health statistics report a 2·5-fold increase in laboratory-confirmed Chlamydia trachomatis (CT) cases over the last decade in Switzerland where no CT screening programme exists. We obtained essential denominator information to describe the epidemiology of CT in the canton of Basel-Stadt, an urban canton in north-western Switzerland. Laboratories reporting at least two CT infections from Basel-Stadt residents to the SFOPH in 2010 provided demographic and test-related data. CT positivity rates were calculated for 2002–2010. The influences of test year, age, sex and laboratory on CT positivity were investigated in a multivariable model. Positivity differed between sexes and age groups. In our sample of 32 034 records, female and male CT positivity rates were 4·7% and 11·1%, respectively. Test year was significantly associated with test outcome in the multivariable analysis but no time trend was observed. CT positivity did not change over the past 9 years in Basel-Stadt. In contrast to other European countries without CT screening, we found no evidence that the observed increase of Chlamydia cases in the national notification system represents an epidemiological trend, but rather results from an increased testing frequency.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overChildChild, PreschoolChlamydia InfectionsChlamydia trachomatisFemaleHumansInfantMaleMiddle AgedPrevalenceRisk FactorsSwitzerland

Identifiers

PMID23158540
PMCPMC3757368

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.