Literature DB >> 16731666

Screening for Chlamydia trachomatis: a systematic review of the economic evaluations and modelling.

T E Roberts1, S Robinson, P Barton, S Bryan, N Low.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To review systematically and critically, evidence used to derive estimates of costs and cost effectiveness of chlamydia screening.
METHODS: Systematic review. A search of 11 electronic bibliographic databases from the earliest date available to August 2004 using keywords including chlamydia, pelvic inflammatory disease, economic evaluation, and cost. We included studies of chlamydia screening in males and/or females over 14 years, including studies of diagnostic tests, contact tracing, and treatment as part of a screening programme. Outcomes included cases of chlamydia identified and major outcomes averted. We assessed methodological quality and the modelling approach used.
RESULTS: Of 713 identified papers we included 57 formal economic evaluations and two cost studies. Most studies found chlamydia screening to be cost effective, partner notification to be an effective adjunct, and testing with nucleic acid amplification tests, and treatment with azithromycin to be cost effective. Methodological problems limited the validity of these findings: most studies used static models that are inappropriate for infectious diseases; restricted outcomes were used as a basis for policy recommendations; and high estimates of the probability of chlamydia associated complications might have overestimated cost effectiveness. Two high quality dynamic modelling studies found opportunistic screening to be cost effective but poor reporting or uncertainty about complication rates make interpretation difficult.
CONCLUSION: The inappropriate use of static models to study interventions to prevent a communicable disease means that uncertainty remains about whether chlamydia screening programmes are cost effective or not. The results of this review can be used by health service managers in the allocation of resources, and health economists and other researchers who are considering further research in this area.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16731666      PMCID: PMC2593085          DOI: 10.1136/sti.2005.017517

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Sex Transm Infect        ISSN: 1368-4973            Impact factor:   3.519


  67 in total

Review 1.  Cost effectiveness of screening for Chlamydia trachomatis: a review of published studies.

Authors:  E Honey; C Augood; A Templeton; I Russell; J Paavonen; P-A Mårdh; A Stary; B Stray-Pedersen
Journal:  Sex Transm Infect       Date:  2002-12       Impact factor: 3.519

2.  Modelling the healthcare costs of an opportunistic chlamydia screening programme.

Authors:  E J Adams; D S LaMontagne; A R Johnston; J M Pimenta; K A Fenton; W J Edmunds
Journal:  Sex Transm Infect       Date:  2004-10       Impact factor: 3.519

3.  Cost-benefit analysis of first-void urine Chlamydia trachomatis screening program.

Authors:  J Paavonen; M Puolakkainen; M Paukku; H Sintonen
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  1998-08       Impact factor: 7.661

4.  Efficiency and cost-effectiveness of field follow-up for patients with Chlamydia trachomatis infection in a sexually transmitted diseases clinic.

Authors:  B P Katz; C S Danos; T S Quinn; V Caine; R B Jones
Journal:  Sex Transm Dis       Date:  1988 Jan-Mar       Impact factor: 2.830

5.  Cost-effectiveness of culturing for Chlamydia trachomatis. A study in a clinic for sexually transmitted diseases.

Authors:  M D Nettleman; R B Jones; S D Roberts; B P Katz; A E Washington; R S Dittus; T S Quinn
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  1986-08       Impact factor: 25.391

6.  Cost-effectiveness of five strategies for gonorrhea and chlamydia control among female and male emergency department patients.

Authors:  Supriya D Mehta; David Bishai; M Rene Howell; Richard E Rothman; Thomas C Quinn; Jonathan M Zenilman
Journal:  Sex Transm Dis       Date:  2002-02       Impact factor: 2.830

7.  Screening high-risk adolescent males for Chlamydia trachomatis infection. Obtaining urine specimens in the field.

Authors:  R A Gunn; G D Podschun; S Fitzgerald; M F Hovell; C E Farshy; C M Black; J R Greenspan
Journal:  Sex Transm Dis       Date:  1998-01       Impact factor: 2.830

8.  Proportional payment for pelvic inflammatory disease: who should pay for chlamydial screening?

Authors:  M D Nettleman; R B Jones
Journal:  Sex Transm Dis       Date:  1989 Jan-Mar       Impact factor: 2.830

9.  The chlamydia screening studies: rationale and design.

Authors:  N Low; A McCarthy; J Macleod; C Salisbury; P J Horner; T E Roberts; R Campbell; A Herring; S Skidmore; E Sanford; J A C Sterne; G Davey Smith; A Graham; M Huengsberg; J Ross; M Egger
Journal:  Sex Transm Infect       Date:  2004-10       Impact factor: 3.519

10.  Cost-effectiveness of screening women at moderate risk for genital infections caused by Chlamydia trachomatis.

Authors:  M D Nettleman; R B Jones
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1988-07-08       Impact factor: 56.272

View more
  17 in total

1.  Cost effectiveness of one to one STI prevention interventions.

Authors:  Harrell W Chesson
Journal:  Sex Transm Infect       Date:  2007-10       Impact factor: 3.519

Review 2.  One to one interventions to reduce sexually transmitted infections and under the age of 18 conceptions: a systematic review of the economic evaluations.

Authors:  L Barham; D Lewis; N Latimer
Journal:  Sex Transm Infect       Date:  2007-07-11       Impact factor: 3.519

3.  Health economic and infectious disease modelling: a guide to merging streams.

Authors:  Andrea Anonychuk; Murray Krahn
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2011-05       Impact factor: 4.981

4.  Chlamydia trachomatis infection among women 26 to 39 years of age in the United States, 1999 to 2010.

Authors:  Elizabeth A Torrone; William M Geisler; Thomas L Gift; Hillard S Weinstock
Journal:  Sex Transm Dis       Date:  2013-04       Impact factor: 2.830

5.  The cost effectiveness of opportunistic chlamydia screening in England.

Authors:  Elisabeth J Adams; Katherine M E Turner; W John Edmunds
Journal:  Sex Transm Infect       Date:  2007-07       Impact factor: 3.519

6.  Screening young adults for prevalent chlamydial infection in community settings.

Authors:  Cheryl R Stein; Jay S Kaufman; Carol A Ford; Peter A Leone; Paul J Feldblum; William C Miller
Journal:  Ann Epidemiol       Date:  2008-05-27       Impact factor: 3.797

7.  Cost effectiveness of home based population screening for Chlamydia trachomatis in the UK: economic evaluation of chlamydia screening studies (ClaSS) project.

Authors:  Tracy E Roberts; Suzanne Robinson; Pelham M Barton; Stirling Bryan; Anne McCarthy; John Macleod; Matthias Egger; Nicola Low
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2007-07-26

8.  Costs and health consequences of chlamydia management strategies among pregnant women in sub-Saharan Africa.

Authors:  M Romoren; F Hussein; T W Steen; M Velauthapillai; J Sundby; P Hjortdahl; I S Kristiansen
Journal:  Sex Transm Infect       Date:  2007-10-11       Impact factor: 3.519

9.  Cost-effectiveness of screening men in Maricopa County jails for chlamydia and gonorrhea to avert infections in women.

Authors:  Chaitra Gopalappa; Ya-Lin A Huang; Thomas L Gift; Kwame Owusu-Edusei; Melanie Taylor; Vincent Gales
Journal:  Sex Transm Dis       Date:  2013-10       Impact factor: 2.830

10.  Optimizing strategies for population-based chlamydia infection screening among young women: an age-structured system dynamics approach.

Authors:  Yu Teng; Nan Kong; Wanzhu Tu
Journal:  BMC Public Health       Date:  2015-07-11       Impact factor: 3.295

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.