Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28214469›Full record

ArticleBMC infectious diseases2017

Cost-benefit analysis of Chlamydia trachomatis screening in pregnant women in a high burden setting in the United States.

Jared Ditkowsky, Khushal H Shah, Margaret R Hammerschlag, Stephan Kohlhoff, Tamar A Smith-Norowitz

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC infectious diseases, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Management of Pelvic Inflammatory Disease in Clinical Practice.Therapeutics and clinical risk management · 2023
    Review
  8. Detection of Chlamydia trachomatis infection in sexually active women in VenezuelaBiomedica : revista del Instituto Nacional de Salud · 2022
    Article
  9. Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Prevalence ofOpen forum infectious diseases · 2021
    Article
  13. Expert review of vaccines · 2021
    Article
  14. Frontiers in public health · 2021
    Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. 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

5 authors.

Jared DitkowskyDepartment of Pediatrics, Division of Infectious Diseases, State University of New York Downstate Medical Center, Box 49, 450 Clarkson Ave, Brooklyn, NY, 11203, USA.
Khushal H ShahDepartment of Pediatrics, Division of Infectious Diseases, State University of New York Downstate Medical Center, Box 49, 450 Clarkson Ave, Brooklyn, NY, 11203, USA.
Margaret R HammerschlagDepartment of Pediatrics, Division of Infectious Diseases, State University of New York Downstate Medical Center, Box 49, 450 Clarkson Ave, Brooklyn, NY, 11203, USA.
Stephan KohlhoffDepartment of Pediatrics, Division of Infectious Diseases, State University of New York Downstate Medical Center, Box 49, 450 Clarkson Ave, Brooklyn, NY, 11203, USA.
Tamar A Smith-NorowitzDepartment of Pediatrics, Division of Infectious Diseases, State University of New York Downstate Medical Center, Box 49, 450 Clarkson Ave, Brooklyn, NY, 11203, USA. tamar.smith-norowitz@downstate.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundChlamydia trachomatis is the most common bacterial sexually transmitted infection (STI) in the United States (U.S.) [1] and remains a major public health problem. We determined the cost- benefit of screening all pregnant women aged 15-24 for Chlamydia trachomatis infection compared with no screening.

methodsWe developed a decision analysis model to estimate costs and health-related effects of screening pregnant women for C. trachomatis in a high burden setting (Brooklyn, NY). Outcome data was from literature for pregnant women in the 2015 US population. A virtual cohort of 6,444,686 pregnant women, followed for 1 year was utilized. Using outcomes data from the literature, we predicted the number of C. trachomatis cases, associated morbidity, and related costs. Two comparison arms were developed: pregnant women who received chlamydia screening, and those who did not. Costs and morbidity of a pregnant woman-infant pair with C. trachomatis were calculated and compared.

resultsCost and benefit of screening relied on the prevalence of C. trachomatis; when rates are above 16.9%, screening was proven to offer net cost savings. At a pre-screening era prevalence of 8%, a screening program has an increased expense of $124.65 million ($19.34/individual), with 328 thousand more cases of chlamydia treated, and significant reduction in morbidity. At a current estimate of prevalence, 6.7%, net expenditure for screening is $249.08 million ($38.65/individual), with 204.63 thousand cases of treated chlamydia and reduced morbidity.

conclusionsConsidering a high prevalence region, prenatal screening for C. trachomatis resulted in increased expenditure, with a significant reduction in morbidity to woman-infant pairs. Screening programs are appropriate if the cost per individual is deemed acceptable to prevent the morbidity associated with C. trachomatis.

Indexed as

AdolescentChlamydia InfectionsChlamydia trachomatisCost-Benefit AnalysisDecision Support TechniquesFemaleHumansMass ScreeningPregnancyPregnancy Complications, InfectiousPrenatal CarePrevalenceUnited StatesYoung AdultChlamydia screeningC. trachomatisPregnant women

Identifiers

PMID28214469
PMCPMC5316151

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.