ArticleThe Journal of infectious diseases2025
Routine Treatment Versus Selective Treatment for Individuals Reporting Contact With Sexual Partners With Chlamydia: A Before-and-After Study.
Article in The Journal of infectious diseases, 2025. 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.
- Vaginal microbiomes and their pertinent social context: a microbial ecological review proffering AMR-STI acquisition and emergence.Biology of sex differences · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMany international guidelines recommend routine treatment for individuals reporting sexual contact with sexual partners with chlamydia. In October 2019, the Melbourne Sexual Health Centre (MSHC) changed routine treatment of all chlamydia contacts to selective treatment, reserving same-day treatment for those testing positive, unless patients presented with symptoms or with specific reasons.
methodsWe conducted a before-and-after study among chlamydia contacts at MSHC by comparing 12 months before the "routine treatment" period (December 2018 to October 2019) and after the "selective treatment" period (November 2019 to December 2020).
resultsOf the 2843 chlamydia contacts included in the analysis, chlamydia positivity was 31.9% (907/2843). The proportion of contacts who received treatment before test results decreased from 91.1% (1380/1515) to 55.6% (739/1328) (P < .0001). We reviewed 232 of the 739 chlamydia contacts in the selective period to determine reasons for treatment; 41.4% (96/232) were treated due to the presence of symptoms. The proportion of those who received treatment and later tested positive did not change between the 2 periods (3% [482/1380] vs 34.2% [253/739]; P = .750). The proportion of contacts who received unnecessary treatment (treated but tested negative) did not change between the 2 periods (65.1% [898/1380] vs 65.8% [486/739]; P = .750). Of the 60 who did not receive treatment but tested positive subsequently, 7 (11.7%) did not return for treatment, and it did not differ between the 2 periods (P = .370).
conclusionsThe selective treatment approach has reduced antibiotic consumption and likely decreased the overall workload of clinic staff by minimizing the need to treat all contacts.
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.