ArticleThe Lancet. Public health2018
Changes in chlamydia prevalence and duration of infection estimated from testing and diagnosis rates in England: a model-based analysis using surveillance data, 2000-15.
Article in The Lancet. Public health, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 30 citations in OpenAlex.
- Global, regional, and national burden of chlamydial infection: a systematic analysis of incidence, prevalence, deaths, and DALYs with projections to 2046.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- Using infection prevalence, seroprevalence and case report data to estimate chlamydial infection incidence.Sexually transmitted infections · 2023Article
- Chlamydia-related knowledge, opinion to opportunistic testing, and practices of providers among different sexually transmitted infections related departments in hospitals in Shenzhen city, China.BMC health services research · 2022Article
- Controversies and evidence on Chlamydia testing and treatment in asymptomatic women and men who have sex with men: a narrative review.BMC infectious diseases · 2022Review
- Per-partnership transmission probabilities for Chlamydia trachomatis infection: evidence synthesis of population-based survey data.International journal of epidemiology · 2021Article
- Infectious Disease and Primary Care Research-What English General Practitioners Say They Need.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Article
- Understanding Relationships Between Chlamydial Infection, Symptoms, and Testing Behavior: An Analysis of Data from Natsal-3.Epidemiology (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2020Article
- [Response to KounaliEpidemiology and infection · 2019Article
- Letter to editor in response to HasEpidemiology and infection · 2019Article
- Discrepancies between observed data and predictions from mathematical modelling of the impact of screening interventions on Chlamydia trachomatis prevalence.Scientific reports · 2019Article
- Assessing local chlamydia screening performance by combining survey and administrative data to account for differences in local population characteristics.Scientific reports · 2019Article
- Article
- Has Chlamydia trachomatis prevalence in young women in England, Scotland and Wales changed? Evidence from national probability surveys.Epidemiology and infection · 2019Article
- Epidemiological Trends of Antibiotic Resistant Gonorrhoea in the United Kingdom.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2018Review
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundChlamydia screening programmes have been implemented in several countries, but the effects of screening on incidence, prevalence, and reproductive sequelae remain unclear. In England, despite increases in testing with the rollout of the National Chlamydia Screening Programme (NCSP; 2003-08), prevalence estimated in 10-yearly population-based surveys was similar before (1999-2001) and after (2010-12) the programme. However, the precision of these previous estimates was limited by the low numbers of infections. We aimed to establish annual, rather than 10-yearly, estimates of chlamydia prevalence and infection duration.
methodsIn this model-based analysis, we used previously published minimum and maximum estimates and Public Health England data for chlamydia test coverage and diagnoses in men and women aged 15-24 years in England, before, during, and after the scale-up of national chlamydia screening. We used a mechanistic model, which accounted for symptomatic chlamydia testing and asymptomatic screening, to estimate changes in prevalence and average duration of infections for each year. We describe estimates derived from the maximum and minimum numbers of tests and diagnoses as maximum and minimum estimates, regardless of their relative magnitude.
findingsThe data included numbers of tests and diagnoses in men and women aged 15-19 years and 20-24 years in England each year from 2000 to 2015. We estimated reductions in prevalence and average infection duration in both sexes once screening was fully implemented. From 2008 to 2010, estimated posterior median prevalence reductions in people aged 15-24 years were 0·68 percentage points (95% credible interval 0·26-1·40; minimum) and 0·66 percentage points (0·25-1·37; maximum) for men and 0·77 percentage points (0·45-1·27) for women (minimum and maximum estimates were the same for women). Over the same time period, mean duration of infection reduced by 75 days (95% credible interval 17-255; minimum) and 74 days (95% credible interval 17-247; maximum) in men and 30 days (22-40) in women. Since 2010, some of the progress made by the NCSP has been reversed, alongside a reduction in testing.
interpretationOur analysis provides the first evidence for a reduction in chlamydia prevalence in England concurrent with large-scale population testing. It also shows a consistent decline in the average duration of infections, which is a measure of screening effectiveness that is unaffected by behavioural changes.
fundingNational Institute for Health Research, Medical Research Council.
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.