ArticleCMAJ open
Estimating the test-adjusted incidence of
Article in CMAJ open. 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.
- Impact of adjustment for differential testing by age and sex on apparent epidemiology of SARS-CoV- 2 infection in Ontario, Canada.BMC infectious diseases · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPublic health guidelines for chlamydia testing are not sex specific, but young females test at a disproportionally higher rate than males and other age groups. This study aims to describe testing trends across age and sex subgroups, then estimate a test-adjusted incidence of chlamydia in these subgroups to identify gaps in current testing practices.
methodsWe used a population-based study to examine observed chlamydia rates by age and sex subgroups: 15-19 years, 20-29 years, 30-39 years and older than 40 years. The study included diagnostic test results recorded by Public Health Ontario Laboratories between Jan. 1, 2010, and Dec. 31, 2018, for individuals living in Peel region, Ontario. We then employed meta-regression models as a method of standardization to estimate the effect of sex and age on standardized morbidity ratio, testing ratio and test positivity, then calculate a test-adjusted incidence of chlamydia for each subgroup.
resultsOver the study period, infection, testing and test positivity varied across age and sex subgroups. Observed incidence and testing were highest in females aged 20-29 years, whereas males had the highest standardized test positivity across all age groups. After estimating test-adjusted incidence for each age-sex subgroup, males in the 15-19-year and 30-39-year age groups had an increase in incidence of 60.2% and 9.7%, respectively, compared with the observed incidence.
interpretationWe found that estimated test-adjusted incidence was higher than observed incidence in males aged 15-19 years and 30-39 years. This suggests that infections in males are likely being missed owing to differential testing, and this may be contributing to the persistent increase in reported cases in Canada. Public health programming that targets males, especially in high-risk settings and communities, and use of innovative partner notification methods could be critical to curbing overall rates of chlamydia.
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.