ArticleSexually transmitted diseases2020
The Influence of Screening, Misclassification, and Reporting Biases on Reported Chlamydia Case Rates Among Young Women in the United States, 2000 Through 2017.
Article in Sexually transmitted diseases, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- An agent-based platform for simulating the impact of chlamydia vaccine in the US population.Nature communications · 2026Article
- Chlamydia trachomatis Seroassays Used in Epidemiologic Research: A Narrative Review and Practical Considerations.The Journal of infectious diseases · 2024Review
- Testing Technologies as Enhancers of Disease Intervention Specialist Activities: Applying Lessons From COVID-19.Sexually transmitted diseases · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundNational chlamydia case rate trends are difficult to interpret because of biases from partial screening coverage, imperfect diagnostic tests, and underreporting. We examined the extent to which these time-varying biases could influence reported annual chlamydia case rates.
methodsAnnual reported case rates among women aged 15 through 24 years from 2000 through 2017 were obtained from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention AtlasPlus tool. Estimates of reporting completeness, diagnostic test sensitivity and specificity, and screening coverage were derived from literature review and expert opinion. We adjusted annual reported case rates for incomplete reporting, imperfect diagnostic tests, and partial screening coverage through a series of corrections, and calculated annual adjusted case rates of correctly diagnosed chlamydia.
resultsAdjusted chlamydia case rates among young women were higher than reported case rates throughout the study period. Reported case rates increased over the study period, but adjusted rates declined from 12,900 to 7900 cases per 100,000 person-years between 2000 and 2007. After 2007, adjusted case rates declined to 7500 cases per 100,000 person-years in 2017. Bias from partial screening coverage had a larger impact on case rate magnitude and trend shape than bias from imperfect diagnostic tests or underreporting.
conclusionsReported chlamydia case rates may be substantially lower than true chlamydia case rates because of incomplete reporting, imperfect diagnostic tests, and partial screening coverage. Because the magnitude of these biases has declined over time, the differences between reported and adjusted case rates have narrowed, revealing a sharp decline in adjusted case rates even as reported case rates have risen. The decline in adjusted case rates suggests that the rise in reported case rates should not be interpreted strictly as increasing chlamydia incidence, as the observed rise can be explained by improvements in screening coverage, diagnostic tests, and reporting.
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.