Literature DB >> 16854994

Screening for Chlamydia trachomatis in asymptomatic women attending outpatient clinics in a large maternity hospital in Dublin, Ireland.

H M McMillan1, H O'Carroll, J S Lambert, K B Grundy, M O'Reilly, B Lennon, C Collins, T A Walsh, M P Geary, M T Cafferkey.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Chlamydia trachomatis can cause a sexually transmitted infection, which, untreated, may result in considerable morbidity.
METHODS: A prevalence study was conducted for C trachomatis using nucleic acid amplification technology in asymptomatic women, and certain risk factors that may be used to direct future screening strategies were assessed.
RESULTS: The study population comprised 945 asymptomatic women, of whom 783 were attending antenatal clinics, 91 were attending infertility clinics and 71 were attending family planning clinics. An overall C trachomatis prevalence of 3.7% (35/945) was found, with the highest prevalence of 11.2% (22/196) in Irish single women aged <25 years. Logistic regression analysis showed that single status and age <25 years were independent, statistically significant predictors of C trachomatis infection.
CONCLUSION: These results support routine screening of asymptomatic women who are sexually active and aged <25 years. An opportunist active screening of all sexually active women independent of age should be additionally considered if resources permit.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16854994      PMCID: PMC2563860          DOI: 10.1136/sti.2006.020990

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


  15 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.  Screening for chlamydial infections and the risk of ectopic pregnancy in a county in Sweden: ecological analysis.

Authors:  M Egger; N Low; G D Smith; B Lindblom; B Herrmann
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1998-06-13

3.  False-negative results of a ligase chain reaction assay to detect Chlamydia trachomatis due to inhibitors in urine.

Authors:  E S Berg; G Anestad; H Moi; G Størvold; K Skaug
Journal:  Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis       Date:  1997-10       Impact factor: 3.267

Review 4.  Is screening for Chlamydia trachomatis infection cost effective?

Authors:  J Paavonen
Journal:  Genitourin Med       Date:  1997-04

5.  Screening women for chlamydia trachomatis in family planning clinics: the cost-effectiveness of DNA amplification assays.

Authors:  M R Howell; T C Quinn; W Brathwaite; C A Gaydos
Journal:  Sex Transm Dis       Date:  1998-02       Impact factor: 2.830

6.  Detection of Chlamydia trachomatis in urine samples by nucleic acid tests: comparison with culture and enzyme immunoassay of genital swab specimens.

Authors:  S Schepetiuk; T Kok; L Martin; R Waddell; G Higgins
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  1997-12       Impact factor: 5.948

7.  Chlamydia trachomatis prevalence in men in the mid-west of Ireland.

Authors:  J Powell; C O'Connor; M O'hlarlaithe; J Saunders; J De Freitas
Journal:  Sex Transm Infect       Date:  2004-10       Impact factor: 3.519

Review 8.  Chlamydia trachomatis in the United Kingdom: a systematic review and analysis of prevalence studies.

Authors:  E J Adams; A Charlett; W J Edmunds; G Hughes
Journal:  Sex Transm Infect       Date:  2004-10       Impact factor: 3.519

9.  Screening for Chlamydia trachomatis in women 15 to 29 years of age: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

Authors:  Delphine Hu; Edward W Hook; Sue J Goldie
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2004-10-05       Impact factor: 25.391

10.  Prevention of pelvic inflammatory disease by screening for cervical chlamydial infection.

Authors:  D Scholes; A Stergachis; F E Heidrich; H Andrilla; K K Holmes; W E Stamm
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1996-05-23       Impact factor: 91.245

View more
  5 in total

1.  Screening for asymptomatic urogenital Chlamydia trachomatis infection at a large Dublin maternity hospital: results of a pilot study.

Authors:  A C O'Higgins; V Jackson; M Lawless; D Le Blanc; G Connolly; R Drew; M Eogan; J S Lambert
Journal:  Ir J Med Sci       Date:  2016-03-11       Impact factor: 1.568

2.  Young pregnant women's views on the acceptability of screening for chlamydia as part of routine antenatal care.

Authors:  Jade E Bilardi; Deborah L De Guingand; Meredith J Temple-Smith; Suzanne Garland; Christopher K Fairley; Sonia Grover; Euan Wallace; Jane S Hocking; Sepehr Tabrizi; Marie Pirotta; Marcus Y Chen
Journal:  BMC Public Health       Date:  2010-08-19       Impact factor: 3.295

3.  Lost opportunity to save newborn lives: variable national antenatal screening policies for Neisseria gonorrhoeae and Chlamydia trachomatis.

Authors:  Alexandra Medline; Dvora Joseph Davey; Jeffrey D Klausner
Journal:  Int J STD AIDS       Date:  2016-07-20       Impact factor: 1.359

4.  Prevalence of Chlamydia trachomatis infection in parturient women in Gipuzkoa, Northern Spain.

Authors:  Luis Piñeiro; Arantza Lekuona; Gustavo Cilla; Izaskun Lasa; Laura-Pilar Martinez-Gallardo; Javier Korta; Emilio Pérez-Trallero
Journal:  Springerplus       Date:  2016-05-10

5.  Knowledge and acceptability of Chlamydia trachomatis screening among pregnant women and their partners; a cross-sectional study.

Authors:  Monique T R Pereboom; Evelien R Spelten; Judith Manniën; G Ingrid J G Rours; Servaas A Morré; François G Schellevis; Eileen K Hutton
Journal:  BMC Public Health       Date:  2014-07-09       Impact factor: 3.295

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.