Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28183393›Full record

ArticleEuro surveillance : bulletin Europeen sur les maladies transmissibles = European communicable disease bulletin2017

Filling in the gaps: estimating numbers of chlamydia tests and diagnoses by age group and sex before and during the implementation of the English National Screening Programme, 2000 to 2012.

Nastassya L Chandra, Kate Soldan, Ciara Dangerfield, Bersabeh Sile, Stephen Duffell, Alireza Talebi, Yoon H Choi, Gwenda Hughes, Sarah C Woodhall

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Euro surveillance : bulletin Europeen sur les maladies transmissibles = European communicable disease bulletin, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
–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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. 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

9 authors.

Nastassya L ChandraNational Infection Service, Public Health England, London, United Kingdom.
Kate SoldanNational Infection Service, Public Health England, London, United Kingdom.
Ciara DangerfieldNational Infection Service, Public Health England, London, United Kingdom.
Bersabeh SileNational Infection Service, Public Health England, London, United Kingdom.
Stephen DuffellNational Infection Service, Public Health England, London, United Kingdom.
Alireza TalebiNational Infection Service, Public Health England, London, United Kingdom.
Yoon H ChoiNational Infection Service, Public Health England, London, United Kingdom.
Gwenda HughesNational Infection Service, Public Health England, London, United Kingdom.
Sarah C WoodhallNational Infection Service, Public Health England, London, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

To inform mathematical modelling of the impact of chlamydia screening in England since 2000, a complete picture of chlamydia testing is needed. Monitoring and surveillance systems evolved between 2000 and 2012. Since 2012, data on publicly funded chlamydia tests and diagnoses have been collected nationally. However, gaps exist for earlier years. We collated available data on chlamydia testing and diagnosis rates among 15-44-year-olds by sex and age group for 2000-2012. Where data were unavailable, we applied data- and evidence-based assumptions to construct plausible minimum and maximum estimates and set bounds on uncertainty. There was a large range between estimates in years when datasets were less comprehensive (2000-2008); smaller ranges were seen hereafter. In 15-19-year-old women in 2000, the estimated diagnosis rate ranged between 891 and 2,489 diagnoses per 100,000 persons. Testing and diagnosis rates increased between 2000 and 2012 in women and men across all age groups using minimum or maximum estimates, with greatest increases seen among 15-24-year-olds. Our dataset can be used to parameterise and validate mathematical models and serve as a reference dataset to which trends in chlamydia-related complications can be compared. Our analysis highlights the complexities of combining monitoring and surveillance datasets.

Indexed as

Chlamydia trachomatisPopulation SurveillanceAdolescentAdultChlamydia InfectionsEnglandFemaleHumansMaleMass ScreeningModels, TheoreticalPrevalenceProgram DevelopmentProgram EvaluationYoung AdultChlamydiamathematical modellingnational chlamydia screening programmescreeningsexually transmitted infectionssurveillance

Identifiers

PMID28183393
PMCPMC5388116

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.