ArticleSexually transmitted diseases2014
Estimating chlamydia screening coverage: a comparison of self-report and health care effectiveness data and information set measures.
Article in Sexually transmitted diseases, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Reliability of administrative data to identify sexually transmitted infections for population health: a systematic review.BMJ health & care informatics · 2019Pooled it
- Trial
- Chlamydia and gonorrhoea screening and diagnosis by anatomical site among individuals with opposite-sex partners: a rapid review.Sexually transmitted infections · 2025Article
- "It's a Big Ordeal": A Mixed Methods Study of the Experiences of non-HIV STI Testing Among Trans and Gender Diverse People.International journal of sexual health : official journal of the World Association for Sexual Health · 2025Article
- Knowledge about and prevalence of Chlamydia trachomatis in a population-based sample of emerging Croatian adults.PloS one · 2023Article
- Bacterial Vaginosis and Behavioral Factors Associated With Incident Pelvic Inflammatory Disease in the Longitudinal Study of Vaginal Flora.The Journal of infectious diseases · 2021Article
- The Influence of Screening, Misclassification, and Reporting Biases on Reported Chlamydia Case Rates Among Young Women in the United States, 2000 Through 2017.Sexually transmitted diseases · 2020Article
- Evaluation of the Performance of a Point-of-Care Test for Chlamydia and Gonorrhea.JAMA network open · 2020Article
- Molecular-based Testing for Sexually Transmitted Infections Using Samples Previously Collected for Vaginitis Diagnosis.Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2019Article
- Racial/Ethnic Disparities in the Lifetime Risk of Chlamydia trachomatis Diagnosis and Adverse Reproductive Health Outcomes Among Women in King County, Washington.Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2018Article
- Racial Differences in Receipt of Chlamydia Testing Among Medicaid-Insured Women in 2013.Sexually transmitted diseases · 2016Article
- The Significant Impact of Different Insurance Enrollment Criteria on the HEDIS Chlamydia Screening Measure for Young Women Enrolled in Medicaid and Commercial Insurance Plans.Sexually transmitted diseases · 2015Article
- Understanding sexual activity and Chlamydia testing rate based on linked national survey and Medicaid claims data.PloS one · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPopulation-based surveys (self-report) and health insurance administrative data (Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set [HEDIS]) are used to estimate chlamydia screening coverage in the United States. Estimates from these methods differ, but few studies have compared these 2 indices in the same population.
methodsIn 2010, we surveyed a random sample of women aged 18 to 25 years enrolled in a Washington State-managed care organization. Respondents were asked if they were sexually active in last year and if they tested for chlamydia in that time. We linked survey responses to administrative records of chlamydia testing and reproductive/testing services used, which comprise the HEDIS definition of the screened population and the sexually active population, respectively. We compared self-report and HEDIS using 3 outcomes: (1) sexual activity (gold standard = self-report), (2) any chlamydia screening (no gold standard), and (3) within-plan chlamydia screening (gold standard = HEDIS).
resultsOf 954 eligible respondents, 377 (40%) completed the survey and consented to administrative record linkage. Chlamydia screening estimates for HEDIS and self-report were 47% and 53%, respectively. The sensitivity and specificity of HEDIS to define sexually active women were 84.8% (95% confidence interval [CI], 79.6%-89.1%) and 63.5% (95% CI, 52.4%-73.7%), respectively. Forty percent of women had a chlamydia test in their administrative record, but 53% self-reported being tested for chlamydia (κ = 0.35); 19% reported out-of-plan chlamydia testing. The sensitivity of self-reported within-plan chlamydia testing was 71.3% (95% CI, 61.0%-80.1%); the specificity was 80.6% (95% CI, 72.6%-87.2%).
conclusionsThe Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set does not accurately identify sexually active women and may underestimate chlamydia testing coverage. Self-reported testing may not be an accurate measure of true chlamydial testing coverage.
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.