ArticleThe American journal of tropical medicine and hygiene2026
Comparison of Methods for Assessing Chlamydia trachomatis Transmission Intensity: A Systematic Review.
Article in The American journal of tropical medicine and hygiene, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Field-graded trachomatous inflammation-follicular (TF) has limitations as the sole indicator of Chlamydia trachomatis (Ct) transmission for trachoma programmatic decision-making. To assess the relationship between field-graded TF and other methodologies for evaluating Ct transmission intensity, a systematic review was conducted. A total of 35,764 studies were screened, yielding 235 included studies from 49 countries spanning the years of data collection from 1991 to 2021 and the years of publication from 1991 to 2022. The relationship between TF and other indicators was stronger before mass drug administration (MDA) versus after MDA initiation: TF versus infection (R2 = 0.43, P = 0.004 versus R2 = 0.05, P = 0.140, respectively), TF versus seroprevalence (R2 = 0.55, P <0.001 versus R2 = 0.09, P = 0.084, respectively), and TF versus seroconversion rate (SCR; R2 = 0.52, P = 0.012 versus R2 = 0.26, P = 0.061, respectively). Post-MDA initiation, infection and SCR were highly correlated (R2 = 0.71, P = 0.001). These results are strongly suggestive of the poor performance of TF prevalence for guiding programmatic decision-making post-MDA initiation. Infection and/or serology should be considered in these settings.
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.