ArticlePathogens and global health
Cost-effectiveness analysis of Chlamydia trachomatis screening in Dutch pregnant women.
Article in Pathogens and global health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Benefits and harms of antenatal and newborn screening programmes in health economic assessments: the VALENTIA systematic review and qualitative investigation.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2024Pooled it
- Evaluation of Chlamydia trachomatis screening from the perspective of health economics: a systematic review.Frontiers in public health · 2023Pooled it
- Are intersectoral costs considered in economic evaluations of interventions relating to sexually transmitted infections (STIs)? A systematic review.BMC public health · 2022Pooled it
- Is screening and treating asymptomatic chlamydia and gonorrhoea among pregnant women cost-effective to prevent preterm birth and low birth weight in Botswana?Sexually transmitted infections · 2025Article
- Maternal-fetal transfer and longitudinal trends of antibodies to Chlamydia trachomatis and Mycoplasma genitalium in early childhood.Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica · 2025Article
- Article
- Article
- Chlamydia trachomatis, Neisseria gonorrhoea, and Trichomonas vaginalis infections among pregnant women and male partners in Dutch midwifery practices: prevalence, risk factors, and perinatal outcomes.Reproductive health · 2021Article
- Prevalence ofOpen forum infectious diseases · 2021Article
- Review
- Chlamydia trachomatis in the gingival sulcus and pharynx in patients of Northeast Mexico.Clinical and experimental dental research · 2020Observational
- Article
- Treating chlamydial infections in pregnancy and preventing adverse birth outcomes.The Lancet. Infectious diseases · 2018Article
- Cost-benefit analysis of Chlamydia trachomatis screening in pregnant women in a high burden setting in the United States.BMC infectious diseases · 2017Article
- Acceptability, feasibility, equity and resource use for prenatal screening for chlamydia and gonorrhea: A systematic review.Canada communicable disease report = Releve des maladies transmissibles au CanadaArticle
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Chlamydia trachomatis infections during pregnancy may have serious consequences for women and their offspring. Chlamydial infections are largely asymptomatic. Hence, prevention is based on screening. The objective of this study was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of C. trachomatis screening during pregnancy. We used a health-economic decision analysis model, which included potential health outcomes of C. trachomatis infection for women, partners and infants, and premature delivery. We estimated the cost-effectiveness from a societal perspective using recent prevalence data from a population-based prospective cohort study among pregnant women in the Netherlands. We calculated the averted costs by linking health outcomes with health care costs and productivity losses. Cost-effectiveness was expressed as net costs per major outcome prevented and was estimated in base-case analysis, sensitivity, and scenario analysis. In the base-case analysis, the costs to detect 1000 pregnant women with C. trachomatis were estimated at €527,900. Prevention of adverse health outcomes averted €626,800 in medical costs, resulting in net cost savings. Sensitivity analysis showed that net cost savings remained with test costs up to €22 (test price €19) for a broad range of variation in underlying assumptions. Scenario analysis showed even more cost savings with targeted screening for women less than 30 years of age or with first pregnancies only. Antenatal screening for C. trachomatis is a cost-saving intervention when testing all pregnant women in the Netherlands. Savings increase even further when testing women younger than 30 years of age or with pregnancies only.
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.