ArticleBMC infectious diseases2017
Cost-benefit analysis of Chlamydia trachomatis screening in pregnant women in a high burden setting in the United States.
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.
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
17 citing papers in PubMed, 4 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
- Pregnancy and fertility-related adverse outcomes associated withSexually transmitted infections · 2020Pooled it
- Diagnosing sexually transmitted infections in resource-constrained settings: challenges and ways forward.Journal of the International AIDS Society · 2019Pooled it
- Current Progress and Future Perspective of Chlamydia trachomatis Infection: A Rising Threat to Women Health.Current microbiology · 2025Review
- Article
- Management of Pelvic Inflammatory Disease in Clinical Practice.Therapeutics and clinical risk management · 2023Review
- Detection of Chlamydia trachomatis infection in sexually active women in VenezuelaBiomedica : revista del Instituto Nacional de Salud · 2022Article
- Review
- The Cost-Effectiveness of HIV/STI Prevention in High-Income Countries with Concentrated Epidemic Settings: A Scoping Review.AIDS and behavior · 2022Article
- 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
- Article
- Review
- Treating chlamydial infections in pregnancy and preventing adverse birth outcomes.The Lancet. Infectious diseases · 2018Article
- Assessing the value of screening tools: reviewing the challenges and opportunities of cost-effectiveness analysis.Public health reviews · 2018Review
- 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.