ArticleEpidemiology and infection2014
Incidence of Chlamydia trachomatis infection in women in England: two methods of estimation.
Article in Epidemiology and infection, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Proportion of Pelvic Inflammatory Disease Cases Caused by Chlamydia trachomatis: Consistent Picture From Different Methods.The Journal of infectious diseases · 2016Article
- Article
- Human and Pathogen Factors Associated with Chlamydia trachomatis-Related Infertility in Women.Clinical microbiology reviews · 2015Review
- Seroprevalence and genotype of Chlamydia in pet parrots in China.Epidemiology and infection · 2015Article
- Prevalence of chlamydia in young adulthood and association with life course socioeconomic position: birth cohort study.PloS one · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Information on the incidence of Chlamydia trachomatis (CT) is essential for models of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of screening programmes. We developed two independent estimates of CT incidence in women in England: one based on an incidence study, with estimates 'recalibrated' to the general population using data on setting-specific relative risks, and allowing for clearance and re-infection during follow-up; the second based on UK prevalence data, and information on the duration of CT infection. The consistency of independent sources of data on incidence, prevalence and duration, validates estimates of these parameters. Pooled estimates of the annual incidence rate in women aged 16-24 and 16-44 years for 2001-2005 using all these data were 0·05 [95% credible interval (CrI) 0·035-0·071] and 0·021 (95% CrI 0·015-0·028), respectively. Although, the estimates apply to England, similar methods could be used in other countries. The methods could be extended to dynamic models to synthesize, and assess the consistency of data on contact and transmission rates.
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.