ArticleThe Lancet regional health. Europe2025
Estimated effect of reduced asymptomatic testing on missed
Article in The Lancet regional health. Europe, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Prioritising meaningful outcomes in the practice evaluation of new chlamydia testing guidelines-Authors' reply.The Lancet regional health. Europe · 2026Article
- Prioritising meaningful outcomes in the practice evaluation of new chlamydia testing guidelines.The Lancet regional health. Europe · 2026Article
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
Background: Widespread testing for asymptomatic chlamydia is under debate. In the Netherlands, from 2025, Methods: We included consultations of women and heterosexual men (≥16 years) tested for CT at the CSH Amsterdam, the Netherlands, 2015-2023. We assessed consultations where no test would have been performed under the new guideline (neither symptoms nor notified), including CT diagnosed during those consultations (=undetected CT). Determinants of undetected CT were assessed using multivariable logistic regression with cluster-robust standard errors. Analyses were stratified by age (<25/≥25 years) and gender (women/men). Findings: In total 241,005 consultations among 124,527 individuals were analysed. Under the new guideline, CT testing would not have been performed in 167,476 (69.5%, 95% confidence interval [CI]; 69.3-69.7%) consultations; mostly among women <25 years (n = 100,756/167,476, 60.2%). In total 17,771/32,360 (54.9%, 95% CI; 54.4-55.5%) CT cases would have remained undetected and untreated: 12,092 among women <25 years, 1498 among women ≥25 years, 3428 among men <25 years, and 753 among men ≥25 years. Determinants of undetected CT were younger age, no/primary/secondary education, and recent bacterial STI. Interpretation: The new guideline limiting CT testing might lead to a more than twofold reduction in diagnoses and antibiotic prescriptions in women and heterosexual men. Surveillance of STIs and associated complications is essential to monitor unintended consequences of the guideline change. Funding: None.
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.