ArticlePloS one2024
Investigating possibilities for surveillance of long term chlamydia complications in the Netherlands: A qualitative study.
Article in PloS one, 2024. 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.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesChlamydia trachomatis (chlamydia) is one of the most reported bacterial sexually transmitted infections (STI) worldwide. Chlamydia can cause long term complications such as pelvic inflammatory disease (PID), ectopic pregnancy (EP) and tubal factor infertility (TFI). Changing testing strategies, for example reduced asymptomatic testing, influence chlamydia surveillance, highlighting the need for exploring alternative ways of monitoring chlamydia. We investigated the possibility of introducing routine surveillance of chlamydia related long term complications.
methodsA qualitative study including 15 in-depth interviews with a purposive sample of gynaecologists, general practitioners (GP), sexual health and emergency doctors was conducted in the Netherlands in 2021-2022. A semi-structured interview guide focused on experiences with diagnosis and registration of PID, EP and TFI and how a change in asymptomatic chlamydia testing strategy might influence this. Interviews were transcribed and analysed using a thematic approach.
resultsAnalysis showed that gynaecologists most frequently reported diagnosing PID, EP and TFI. Other professions rarely diagnose these complications, with emergency doctors only diagnosing EP. Most respondents reported unique registration codes for PID and EP, but the coding for TFI is more ambiguous. They reflected that diagnosis and registration of PID, EP and TFI are handled differently within their professions. Most respondents acknowledged registration in diagnostic codes as a useful surveillance tool. They expressed concerns in representativeness (e.g. differences in interpretation of diagnosis criteria) and data quality for surveillance.
conclusionsPatient files of gynaecologists are likely to be most complete for monitoring trends of diagnosed chlamydia related long term complications in the Netherlands. However, when establishing a chlamydia complication surveillance system, professionals should be engaged in further standardizing diagnosis and registration practices. This will improve the quality and interpretability of complication surveillance and facilitate comparison between countries.
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.