Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29776798›Full record

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.

Joanna Lewis, Peter J White

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
3.3field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 30 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. [Response to KounaliEpidemiology and infection · 2019
    Article
  9. Letter to editor in response to HasEpidemiology and infection · 2019
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Joanna LewisNational Institute for Health Research Health Protection Research Unit in Modelling Methodology and Medical Research Council Centre for Outbreak Analysis and Modelling, Department of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, Imperial College London, UK. Electronic address: joanna.lewis@imperial.ac.uk.
Peter J WhiteNational Institute for Health Research Health Protection Research Unit in Modelling Methodology and Medical Research Council Centre for Outbreak Analysis and Modelling, Department of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, Imperial College London, UK; Modelling and Economics Unit, National Infection Service, Public Health England, London, UK.
Imperial College London · GBNational Institute for Health Research · GB

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/K010174/1Medical Research Council MR/R015600/1
6 · The paper itself

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

Population SurveillanceAdolescentChlamydia InfectionsChlamydia trachomatisEnglandFemaleHumansMaleMass ScreeningModels, StatisticalPrevalenceTime FactorsYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID29776798
PMCPMC5990491
OpenAlexW2803128295

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.