Literature DB >> 3133496

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

M D Nettleman1, R B Jones.   

Abstract

We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of screening women at moderate (prevalence, 7.9%) risk for urogenital infections with Chlamydia trachomatis. The characteristics of culture and direct antigen tests were based on published values. Those of serology were based on a comparative study in 434 college women. Three serological tests were evaluated: microimmunofluorescence, an indirect fluorescent antibody assay, and an enzyme-linked immunoassay. Their sensitivities and specificities were 97% and 64%, 87% and 64%, and 84% and 51%, respectively, compared with culture. Screening all patients with a direct antigen test costing less than $12 was more cost-effective than neither testing nor treating patients, although only 53% of patients with positive test results would actually be infected. The use of culture alone or as a confirmatory test was less cost-effective but had high positive predictive values. Seropositivity was not highly predictive of active infection. Chlamydial screening can be cost-effective in moderate-risk women.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1988        PMID: 3133496

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  JAMA        ISSN: 0098-7484            Impact factor:   56.272


  14 in total

1.  The communicable disease impact of eliminating publicly funded prenatal care for undocumented immigrants.

Authors:  H Kuiper; G A Richwald; H Rotblatt; S Asch
Journal:  Matern Child Health J       Date:  1999-03

Review 2.  Laboratory techniques for the diagnosis of chlamydial infections.

Authors:  D Taylor-Robinson; B J Thomas
Journal:  Genitourin Med       Date:  1991-06

3.  Accuracy of Chlamydia trachomatis antigen detection methods in a low-prevalence population in a primary care setting.

Authors:  P H Gann; J E Herrmann; L Candib; R W Hudson
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  1990-07       Impact factor: 5.948

Review 4.  Screening for Chlamydia trachomatis: a systematic review of the economic evaluations and modelling.

Authors:  T E Roberts; S Robinson; P Barton; S Bryan; N Low
Journal:  Sex Transm Infect       Date:  2006-06       Impact factor: 3.519

5.  Should asymptomatic patients be tested for Chlamydia trachomatis in general practice?

Authors:  H Buhaug; F E Skjeldestad; L E Halvorsen; A Dalen
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  1990-04       Impact factor: 5.386

Review 6.  Drug therapies for sexually transmitted diseases. Clinical and economic considerations.

Authors:  W R Bowie
Journal:  Drugs       Date:  1995-04       Impact factor: 9.546

7.  Chlamydia trachomatis infection in primary unexplained infertility.

Authors:  G Gorini; F Milano; P Olliaro; A Regazzetti; E G Rondanelli
Journal:  Eur J Epidemiol       Date:  1990-09       Impact factor: 8.082

8.  Evaluation of Sanofi Diagnostics Pasteur Chlamydia Microplate EIA shortened assay and comparison with cell culture and Syva Chlamydia MicroTrak II EIA in high- and low-risk populations.

Authors:  E L Chan; K Brandt; G Horsman
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  1995-11       Impact factor: 5.948

9.  Chlamydia trachomatis cervical infection: prevalence and determinants among women presenting for routine gynecologic examination.

Authors:  R Massé; H Laperrière; H Rousseau; J Lefebvre; R S Remis
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  1991-10-15       Impact factor: 8.262

10.  Screening guidelines for Chlamydia trachomatis infection. Evaluating physician awareness, agreement, and use.

Authors:  K Weyman; A R Lanning
Journal:  Can Fam Physician       Date:  1995-02       Impact factor: 3.275

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.