ArticleSexually transmitted infections2024
Trends in
Article in Sexually transmitted infections, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- UnveilingiScience · 2025Article
- Female Sex Workers in the Amazon Region of Brazil Are at High Risk ofMicroorganisms · 2025Article
- Prevalence and risk factors for Chlamydia trachomatis seropositivity and seropersistence among women: A prospective cohort study.PloS one · 2025Article
- Comparison of IgG serum antibodies, electronic health records and self-report in estimating past infection withSexual health · 2024Article
- Chlamydia trachomatis Seroassays Used in Epidemiologic Research: A Narrative Review and Practical Considerations.The Journal of infectious diseases · 2024Review
- Challenges in Chlamydial Serology: Insights from a Belgian and a Dutch Population Cohort.Microorganisms · 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
5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo report sex and age-specific
methodsParticipants (n=5158, aged 15-59 years) were included from three independent nationwide population-based serosurveillance studies in 1996, 2007 and 2017. Participants completed a questionnaire on demographics and sexual behaviour. Serum antibodies were analysed using Medac Ct IgG ELISA test. Census weights were assigned to achieve seroprevalence estimates representative of the general Dutch population. Weighted seroprevalence estimates were stratified by gender, age and birth cohort. Trends and risk factors in men and women were identified using multivariable logistic regression.
resultsWeighted overall Ct seroprevalence was 10.5% (95% CI: 9.2% to 12.0%) in women and 5.8% (95% CI: 4.7% to 7.0%) in men. Among women <25 years, there was a non-significant increase in seroprevalence from 5.9% (95% CI 3.7% to 9.2%) in 1996, to 7.6% (95% CI 5.1% to 11.1%) in 2007 and 8.8% (95% CI 5.5% to 13.9%) in 2017. Among women ≥25 years, the seroprevalence significantly decreased from 15.6% (95% CI: 12.2% to 19.7%) in 1996 to 9.5% (95% CI: 7.2% to 12.4%) in 2007 but did not further drop (11.2% (95% CI 8.1% to 15.3%) in 2017). In men, we did not observe trends between study rounds. In both men and women, having a non-Western migration background was a risk factor for seropositivity. In women, having had a prior sexually transmitted infection and ≥2 recent sex partners were risk factors for seropositivity as well.
conclusionsWe have not found evidence for a decrease in population seroprevalence in those under 25 years old despite decades of intensified testing-and-treatment efforts in the Netherlands. This suggests further monitoring of Ct burden in the general population is needed. If serum banks are used for this, specifically individuals <25 years old and with diverse migration backgrounds should be included.
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.