ArticleIrish journal of medical science2017
Screening for asymptomatic urogenital Chlamydia trachomatis infection at a large Dublin maternity hospital: results of a pilot study.
Article in Irish journal of medical science, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Chlamydia, gonorrhoea, trichomoniasis and syphilis: global prevalence and incidence estimates, 2016.Bulletin of the World Health Organization · 2019Article
- Prevalence of Chlamydia trachomatis in Pregnant Iranian Women: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.International journal of fertility & sterility · 2018Article
- Cost-benefit analysis of Chlamydia trachomatis screening in pregnant women in a high burden setting in the United States.BMC infectious diseases · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThere are currently no Irish guidelines on screening for Chlamydia trachomatis infection in pregnancy. Prevalence rates in the antenatal population are not known which has prevented the development of screening recommendations for this group.
aimsThe objective of this study was to determine the prevalence of asymptomatic urogenital C. trachomatis infection in young women attending for care at a large maternity hospital.
methodsAll patients aged 25 years and under attending the Hospital between December 2011 and December 2013 were offered screening for urogenital C. trachomatis infection. Nucleic acid amplification testing of the C. trachomatis cryptic plasmid was performed on either endocervical swabs or first void urine samples.
resultsThere were 2687 women tested for C. trachomatis infection, 83.4 % (2241/2687) through the antenatal clinics, 7.1 % (193/2687) through the gynaecology clinic, and 9.4 % (253/2687) through the emergency department. The rate of a positive test result was 5.6 % (151/2687) overall. The rates in women ages 16-18, 19-21 and 22-25 years were 9.1 % (31/340), 6.5 % (50/774) and 4.4 % (69/1561), respectively. A positive test result was more likely in those who were unemployed (p = 0.04), those who were Irish (p = 0.03) and those who were unmarried (p < 0.01). There were no cases of neonatal C. trachomatis infection in babies born to mothers who were screened in early pregnancy.
conclusionsThe prevalence rate of detected C. trachomatis infection was 5.6 % in the study population. Screening of antenatal patients may have a role in preventing vertical transmission of infection to the neonate.
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.