ArticleClinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America2022
Cost-effectiveness of Check It: A Novel Community-Based Chlamydia Screening and Expedited Treatment Program for Young Black Men.
Article in Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluation of Chlamydia trachomatis screening from the perspective of health economics: a systematic review.Frontiers in public health · 2023Pooled it
- RefiningBMJ open · 2026Article
- The National Advisory Committee on Sexually Transmitted and Blood-Borne Infections (NAC-STBBI) Statement: Chlamydia and Gonorrhea screening recommendations for non-pregnant adults and adolescents.Canada communicable disease report = Releve des maladies transmissibles au Canada · 2026Article
- HIV Screening Among Young Black Men Who Have Sex with Women in New Orleans, LA.AIDS and behavior · 2024Article
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 at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundWe assessed the cost-effectiveness of the Check It program, a novel community-based chlamydia screening and expedited partner treatment program for young Black men conducted in New Orleans since 2017.
methodsWe implemented a probabilistic cost-effectiveness model using a synthetic cohort of 16 181 men and 13 419 women intended to simulate the size of the Black, sexually active population in New Orleans ages 15-24 years.
resultsThe Check It program cost $196 838 (95% confidence interval [CI]: $117 320-$287 555) to implement, saved 10.2 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs; 95% CI: 7.7-12.7 QALYs), and saved $140 950 (95% CI: -$197 018 to -$105 620) in medical costs per year. The program cost $5468 (95% CI: cost saving, $16 717) per QALY gained. All iterations of the probabilistic model returned cost-effectiveness ratios less than $50 000 per QALY gained.
conclusionsThe Check It program (a bundled seek, test, and treat chlamydia prevention program for young Black men) is cost-effective under base case assumptions. Communities where Chlamydia trachomatis rates have not declined could consider implementing a similar program.
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.