ArticleAmerican journal of preventive medicine2019
Temporal Patterns in Chlamydia Repeat Testing in Massachusetts.
Article in American journal of preventive medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Impact of Changes in Chlamydia Treatment Guidelines on Recurrent/Persistent RectalOpen forum infectious diseases · 2026Article
- Electronic Health Record-Based Algorithm for Monitoring Respiratory Virus-Like Illness.Emerging infectious diseases · 2024Review
- Impact of an Electronic Medical Record Best Practice Alert on Expedited Partner Therapy for Chlamydia Infection and Reinfection.Open forum infectious diseases · 2022Article
- Can Machine Learning Help Identify Patients at Risk for Recurrent Sexually Transmitted Infections?Sexually transmitted diseases · 2021Article
- Electronic Health Record Use in Public Health Infectious Disease Surveillance, USA, 2018-2019.Current infectious disease reports · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
introductionNational guidelines recommend test-of-cure for pregnant women and test-of-reinfection for all patients with chlamydia infections in order to interrupt transmission and prevent adverse sequelae for patients, partners, and newborns. Little is known about retesting and positivity rates, and whether they are changing over time, particularly in private sector practices.
methodsElectronic health record data on patients with chlamydia tests were extracted from three independent clinical practice groups serving ≅20% of the Massachusetts population. Records were extracted using the Electronic medical record Support for Public Health platform (esphealth.org). These data were analyzed for temporal trends in annual repeat testing rates by using generalized estimating equations after index positive chlamydia tests between 2010 and 2015 and for differences in intervals to first repeat tests among pregnant females, non-pregnant females, and males. Data extraction and analysis were performed during calendar years 2017 and 2018.
resultsAn index positive C. trachomatis result was identified for 972 pregnant female cases, 10,309 non-pregnant female cases, and 4,973 male cases. Test-of-cure 3-5 weeks after an index positive test occurred in 37% of pregnant females. Test-of-reinfection 8-16 weeks after an index positive test occurred in 39% of pregnant females, 18% of non-pregnant females, and 9% of males. There were no significant increases in test-of-cure or test-of-reinfection rates from 2010 to 2015. Among cases with repeat tests, 16% of pregnant females, 15% of non-pregnant females, and 16% of males had positive results.
conclusionsChlamydia test-of-cure and test-of-reinfection rates are low, with no evidence of improvement over time. There are substantial opportunities to improve adherence to chlamydia repeat testing recommendations.
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.