ArticleFrontiers in public health2022
Evaluating the impact and cost-effectiveness of chlamydia management strategies in Hong Kong: A modeling study.
Article in Frontiers in public health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Testing paradox may explain increased observed prevalence of bacterial STIs among MSM on HIV PrEP: A modeling study.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: To illustrate the epidemiologic and cost-effectiveness impact of shifting the focus from population-based screening toward a targeted management approach for genital chlamydia infection. Design: Modeling study, implementing an individual-based, stochastic, dynamic network model. Setting: Hong Kong. Population: A hypothetical sample network of 10,000 people with a partnership distribution based on Hong Kong's sexually active population of reproductive age (age 18-49 years). Interventions: In this study, we present several scenarios with different implementations of universal vs. targeted screening (based on partner numbers). We also explored the impact of (1) screening only, (2) screening plus expedited partner therapy, and (3) screening plus partner testing. Primary outcome measures: Change of chlamydia prevalence before and after implementing the different strategies. The cost-effectiveness analysis reports total direct cost from a health provider perspective, the QALYs gained, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER). Results: In comparing the effects of universal screening only and targeted screening of the high-risk population, the mean prevalence during the 10th year of intervention was 2.75 ± 0.30% and 2.35 ± 0.21%, respectively (compared with 3.24 ± 0.30% and 3.35 ± 0.21% before the interventions, respectively). The addition of contact tracing to the latter targeted screening scenario reduces the mean prevalence during the 10th year of intervention to 1.48 ± 0.13% (compared with 3.31 ± 0.33% at baseline) in the best-case of testing before treatment and maximal contact-tracing effectiveness (40%). Overall, the most effective scenarios were those for which interventions focused on the high-risk population defined by the number of partners, with contact tracing included. The ICER for targeted screening with contact tracing at 20% and 40% efficiency was $4,634 and $7,219 per QALY gained, respectively (10-year time horizon). Expedited partner therapy did not significantly impact overall chlamydia prevalence and caused overtreatment. Conclusions: Our study suggests that targeted screening with strengthened contact tracing efforts is the most cost-effective strategy to reduce the prevalence of chlamydia in Hong Kong.
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.