Comparison of two methods of screening for genital chlamydial infection in women attending in general practice: cross sectional survey
Abstract Objectives: To estimate the prevalence of Chlamydia trachomatis in asymptomatic women attending general practice; to assess the potential of the ligase chain reaction as a screening tool; and to evaluate selective screening criteria. Design: Cross sectional survey. Setting: Four general pra...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | BMJ 1997-07, Vol.315 (7102), p.226-230 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 230 |
---|---|
container_issue | 7102 |
container_start_page | 226 |
container_title | BMJ |
container_volume | 315 |
creator | Grun, Lucia Tassano-Smith, Julia Carder, Caroline Johnson, Anne M Robinson, Angela Murray, Elizabeth Stephenson, Judith Haines, Andrew Copas, Andrew Ridgway, Geoffrey |
description | Abstract Objectives: To estimate the prevalence of Chlamydia trachomatis in asymptomatic women attending general practice; to assess the potential of the ligase chain reaction as a screening tool; and to evaluate selective screening criteria. Design: Cross sectional survey. Setting: Four general practices in northeast London. Subjects: 890 women aged 18-35 years attending general practice for a cervical smear or a “young well woman” check between October 1994 and January 1996. The women were tested for C trachomatis with confirmed enzyme immunoassay (endocervical specimens) and ligase chain reaction assay on urine specimens. Main outcome measures: Prevalence of C trachomatis infection in women aged 18-35 on the basis of each test; sensitivity and specificity of both tests in this population. Results: Prevalence of confirmed infection was 2.6% (95% confidence interval 1.6% to 3.6%) in all women. Prevalence on the basis of enzyme immunoassay was 1.6% (0.8% to 2.7%), with a sensitivity of 60% and a specificity of 100%. Prevalence on the basis of ligase chain reaction was 2.5% (1.5% to 3.9%), with 90% sensitivity and 99.8% specificity. Screening all women aged ≤25 and all women who had had two or more partners in the past year would have detected 87% (20/23) of infections. Conclusion: Ligase chain reaction on urine samples performs at least as well as enzyme immunoassay on cervical specimens in this low prevalence population. It offers potential as a non-invasive screening tool. A simple selective screening strategy might be appropriate and would be able to detect most cases of infection. However, a rigorous economic evaluation of possible screening strategies is needed first. Key messages Chlamydia trachomatis causes a common sexually transmitted infection, which is often asymptomatic but may lead to pelvic inflammatory disease, ectopic pregnancy, and tubal infertility in 10%-25% of infected women Over 1 in 20 women aged 18-25 years attending general practice may have undiagnosed infection New screening tests that do not require a cervical sample should improve the prospects for community based screening for chlamydia Rigorous evaluation of the cost effectiveness of such screening is now a priority |
doi_str_mv | 10.1136/bmj.315.7102.226 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>jstor_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_2127176</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><jstor_id>25175268</jstor_id><sourcerecordid>25175268</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-b603t-d32ab1f500c0b45af3b7ff69c21f9483e9a223b5a0238b8c5ee95f7931e423c3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkl2LEzEUhgdR1rLuvTfCoKIXMjUfk2TGC0GKuuqiFxb1LmTSpE2dSWqS2bV_wN_tqS31A1QIJJn3ec_kHN6iuI3RFGPKH3fDekoxmwqMyJQQfq2Y4Jo3FWsovV5MUMvaqsG0uVmcpbRGCBEqmpazk-KkJYwSgSfFt1kYNiq6FHwZbJmvQjmYvAqLtLsmHY3xzi9LG2K5hGNWfalXvRq2CwdH563R2YHZ-fIqDMaXKmfjFzsPfAKLicBtogJMmyeljiGlMu1doKQxXprtreKGVX0yZ4f9tJi_eD6fnVcX716-mj27qDqOaK4WlKgOW4aQRl3NlKWdsJa3mmDb1g01rSKEdkxBq03XaGZMy6xoKTY1oZqeFk_3ZTdjN5iFNj7D6-QmukHFrQzKyd8V71ZyGS4lwTAtwaHAg0OBGL6MJmU5uKRN3ytvwpikaDGsugbw4b9BXiNcY4yAvPsHuQ5jhNEkSRBt4bcEA3TvbxAWQjDecCGAQnvqx5CjscfOMJK7yEiIjITIyF1kJEQGLHd-ncjRcAgI6PcPukpa9TYqr106YkTUTMB8j2XWKYf4U2ZYMMIb0Ku97lI2X4-6ip8lF1Qw-fbDTM7f8PNPs_ev5UfgH-353YP_28R3rhzxpw</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1777568677</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Comparison of two methods of screening for genital chlamydial infection in women attending in general practice: cross sectional survey</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA)</source><source>JSTOR Archive Collection A-Z Listing</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>Grun, Lucia ; Tassano-Smith, Julia ; Carder, Caroline ; Johnson, Anne M ; Robinson, Angela ; Murray, Elizabeth ; Stephenson, Judith ; Haines, Andrew ; Copas, Andrew ; Ridgway, Geoffrey</creator><creatorcontrib>Grun, Lucia ; Tassano-Smith, Julia ; Carder, Caroline ; Johnson, Anne M ; Robinson, Angela ; Murray, Elizabeth ; Stephenson, Judith ; Haines, Andrew ; Copas, Andrew ; Ridgway, Geoffrey</creatorcontrib><description>Abstract Objectives: To estimate the prevalence of Chlamydia trachomatis in asymptomatic women attending general practice; to assess the potential of the ligase chain reaction as a screening tool; and to evaluate selective screening criteria. Design: Cross sectional survey. Setting: Four general practices in northeast London. Subjects: 890 women aged 18-35 years attending general practice for a cervical smear or a “young well woman” check between October 1994 and January 1996. The women were tested for C trachomatis with confirmed enzyme immunoassay (endocervical specimens) and ligase chain reaction assay on urine specimens. Main outcome measures: Prevalence of C trachomatis infection in women aged 18-35 on the basis of each test; sensitivity and specificity of both tests in this population. Results: Prevalence of confirmed infection was 2.6% (95% confidence interval 1.6% to 3.6%) in all women. Prevalence on the basis of enzyme immunoassay was 1.6% (0.8% to 2.7%), with a sensitivity of 60% and a specificity of 100%. Prevalence on the basis of ligase chain reaction was 2.5% (1.5% to 3.9%), with 90% sensitivity and 99.8% specificity. Screening all women aged ≤25 and all women who had had two or more partners in the past year would have detected 87% (20/23) of infections. Conclusion: Ligase chain reaction on urine samples performs at least as well as enzyme immunoassay on cervical specimens in this low prevalence population. It offers potential as a non-invasive screening tool. A simple selective screening strategy might be appropriate and would be able to detect most cases of infection. However, a rigorous economic evaluation of possible screening strategies is needed first. Key messages Chlamydia trachomatis causes a common sexually transmitted infection, which is often asymptomatic but may lead to pelvic inflammatory disease, ectopic pregnancy, and tubal infertility in 10%-25% of infected women Over 1 in 20 women aged 18-25 years attending general practice may have undiagnosed infection New screening tests that do not require a cervical sample should improve the prospects for community based screening for chlamydia Rigorous evaluation of the cost effectiveness of such screening is now a priority</description><edition>International edition</edition><identifier>ISSN: 0959-8138</identifier><identifier>ISSN: 0959-8146</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1468-5833</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1756-1833</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1136/bmj.315.7102.226</identifier><identifier>PMID: 9253271</identifier><identifier>CODEN: BMJOAE</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>London: British Medical Journal Publishing Group</publisher><subject>Adult ; Age Factors ; Biological and medical sciences ; Chlamydia Infections - diagnosis ; Chlamydia Infections - epidemiology ; Chlamydia Infections - urine ; Chlamydia trachomatis ; Cross-Sectional Studies ; Family Practice ; Female ; General aspects ; General practice ; Human infectious diseases. Experimental studies and models ; Humans ; Immunoenzyme techniques ; Infections ; Infectious diseases ; Ligase chain reaction ; Ligases - urine ; Mass Screening - methods ; Medical sciences ; Medical screening ; Multivariate Analysis ; Nurses ; Prevalence ; Screening tests ; Sexual Behavior ; Sexually transmitted diseases ; Specimens ; STD ; Urine ; Vaginal smears ; Vaginal Smears - methods ; Women</subject><ispartof>BMJ, 1997-07, Vol.315 (7102), p.226-230</ispartof><rights>1997 BMJ Publishing Group Ltd.</rights><rights>Copyright 1997 British Medical Journal</rights><rights>1997 INIST-CNRS</rights><rights>Copyright: 1997 (c) 1997 BMJ Publishing Group Ltd.</rights><rights>Copyright British Medical Association Jul 26, 1997</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-b603t-d32ab1f500c0b45af3b7ff69c21f9483e9a223b5a0238b8c5ee95f7931e423c3</citedby></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/25175268$$EPDF$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/25175268$$EHTML$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,315,781,785,804,886,27929,27930,31004,58022,58255</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&idt=2745779$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9253271$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Grun, Lucia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tassano-Smith, Julia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Carder, Caroline</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Johnson, Anne M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Robinson, Angela</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Murray, Elizabeth</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Stephenson, Judith</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Haines, Andrew</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Copas, Andrew</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ridgway, Geoffrey</creatorcontrib><title>Comparison of two methods of screening for genital chlamydial infection in women attending in general practice: cross sectional survey</title><title>BMJ</title><addtitle>BMJ</addtitle><description>Abstract Objectives: To estimate the prevalence of Chlamydia trachomatis in asymptomatic women attending general practice; to assess the potential of the ligase chain reaction as a screening tool; and to evaluate selective screening criteria. Design: Cross sectional survey. Setting: Four general practices in northeast London. Subjects: 890 women aged 18-35 years attending general practice for a cervical smear or a “young well woman” check between October 1994 and January 1996. The women were tested for C trachomatis with confirmed enzyme immunoassay (endocervical specimens) and ligase chain reaction assay on urine specimens. Main outcome measures: Prevalence of C trachomatis infection in women aged 18-35 on the basis of each test; sensitivity and specificity of both tests in this population. Results: Prevalence of confirmed infection was 2.6% (95% confidence interval 1.6% to 3.6%) in all women. Prevalence on the basis of enzyme immunoassay was 1.6% (0.8% to 2.7%), with a sensitivity of 60% and a specificity of 100%. Prevalence on the basis of ligase chain reaction was 2.5% (1.5% to 3.9%), with 90% sensitivity and 99.8% specificity. Screening all women aged ≤25 and all women who had had two or more partners in the past year would have detected 87% (20/23) of infections. Conclusion: Ligase chain reaction on urine samples performs at least as well as enzyme immunoassay on cervical specimens in this low prevalence population. It offers potential as a non-invasive screening tool. A simple selective screening strategy might be appropriate and would be able to detect most cases of infection. However, a rigorous economic evaluation of possible screening strategies is needed first. Key messages Chlamydia trachomatis causes a common sexually transmitted infection, which is often asymptomatic but may lead to pelvic inflammatory disease, ectopic pregnancy, and tubal infertility in 10%-25% of infected women Over 1 in 20 women aged 18-25 years attending general practice may have undiagnosed infection New screening tests that do not require a cervical sample should improve the prospects for community based screening for chlamydia Rigorous evaluation of the cost effectiveness of such screening is now a priority</description><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Age Factors</subject><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Chlamydia Infections - diagnosis</subject><subject>Chlamydia Infections - epidemiology</subject><subject>Chlamydia Infections - urine</subject><subject>Chlamydia trachomatis</subject><subject>Cross-Sectional Studies</subject><subject>Family Practice</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>General aspects</subject><subject>General practice</subject><subject>Human infectious diseases. Experimental studies and models</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Immunoenzyme techniques</subject><subject>Infections</subject><subject>Infectious diseases</subject><subject>Ligase chain reaction</subject><subject>Ligases - urine</subject><subject>Mass Screening - methods</subject><subject>Medical sciences</subject><subject>Medical screening</subject><subject>Multivariate Analysis</subject><subject>Nurses</subject><subject>Prevalence</subject><subject>Screening tests</subject><subject>Sexual Behavior</subject><subject>Sexually transmitted diseases</subject><subject>Specimens</subject><subject>STD</subject><subject>Urine</subject><subject>Vaginal smears</subject><subject>Vaginal Smears - methods</subject><subject>Women</subject><issn>0959-8138</issn><issn>0959-8146</issn><issn>1468-5833</issn><issn>1756-1833</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>1997</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><sourceid>7QJ</sourceid><recordid>eNqFkl2LEzEUhgdR1rLuvTfCoKIXMjUfk2TGC0GKuuqiFxb1LmTSpE2dSWqS2bV_wN_tqS31A1QIJJn3ec_kHN6iuI3RFGPKH3fDekoxmwqMyJQQfq2Y4Jo3FWsovV5MUMvaqsG0uVmcpbRGCBEqmpazk-KkJYwSgSfFt1kYNiq6FHwZbJmvQjmYvAqLtLsmHY3xzi9LG2K5hGNWfalXvRq2CwdH563R2YHZ-fIqDMaXKmfjFzsPfAKLicBtogJMmyeljiGlMu1doKQxXprtreKGVX0yZ4f9tJi_eD6fnVcX716-mj27qDqOaK4WlKgOW4aQRl3NlKWdsJa3mmDb1g01rSKEdkxBq03XaGZMy6xoKTY1oZqeFk_3ZTdjN5iFNj7D6-QmukHFrQzKyd8V71ZyGS4lwTAtwaHAg0OBGL6MJmU5uKRN3ytvwpikaDGsugbw4b9BXiNcY4yAvPsHuQ5jhNEkSRBt4bcEA3TvbxAWQjDecCGAQnvqx5CjscfOMJK7yEiIjITIyF1kJEQGLHd-ncjRcAgI6PcPukpa9TYqr106YkTUTMB8j2XWKYf4U2ZYMMIb0Ku97lI2X4-6ip8lF1Qw-fbDTM7f8PNPs_ev5UfgH-353YP_28R3rhzxpw</recordid><startdate>19970726</startdate><enddate>19970726</enddate><creator>Grun, Lucia</creator><creator>Tassano-Smith, Julia</creator><creator>Carder, Caroline</creator><creator>Johnson, Anne M</creator><creator>Robinson, Angela</creator><creator>Murray, Elizabeth</creator><creator>Stephenson, Judith</creator><creator>Haines, Andrew</creator><creator>Copas, Andrew</creator><creator>Ridgway, Geoffrey</creator><general>British Medical Journal Publishing Group</general><general>British Medical Association</general><general>BMJ Publishing Group LTD</general><general>BMJ Publishing Group</general><scope>BSCLL</scope><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88I</scope><scope>8AF</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ASE</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>BTHHO</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FPQ</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K6X</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>M2P</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>7QJ</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>19970726</creationdate><title>Comparison of two methods of screening for genital chlamydial infection in women attending in general practice: cross sectional survey</title><author>Grun, Lucia ; Tassano-Smith, Julia ; Carder, Caroline ; Johnson, Anne M ; Robinson, Angela ; Murray, Elizabeth ; Stephenson, Judith ; Haines, Andrew ; Copas, Andrew ; Ridgway, Geoffrey</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-b603t-d32ab1f500c0b45af3b7ff69c21f9483e9a223b5a0238b8c5ee95f7931e423c3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>1997</creationdate><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Age Factors</topic><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Chlamydia Infections - diagnosis</topic><topic>Chlamydia Infections - epidemiology</topic><topic>Chlamydia Infections - urine</topic><topic>Chlamydia trachomatis</topic><topic>Cross-Sectional Studies</topic><topic>Family Practice</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>General aspects</topic><topic>General practice</topic><topic>Human infectious diseases. Experimental studies and models</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Immunoenzyme techniques</topic><topic>Infections</topic><topic>Infectious diseases</topic><topic>Ligase chain reaction</topic><topic>Ligases - urine</topic><topic>Mass Screening - methods</topic><topic>Medical sciences</topic><topic>Medical screening</topic><topic>Multivariate Analysis</topic><topic>Nurses</topic><topic>Prevalence</topic><topic>Screening tests</topic><topic>Sexual Behavior</topic><topic>Sexually transmitted diseases</topic><topic>Specimens</topic><topic>STD</topic><topic>Urine</topic><topic>Vaginal smears</topic><topic>Vaginal Smears - methods</topic><topic>Women</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Grun, Lucia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tassano-Smith, Julia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Carder, Caroline</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Johnson, Anne M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Robinson, Angela</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Murray, Elizabeth</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Stephenson, Judith</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Haines, Andrew</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Copas, Andrew</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ridgway, Geoffrey</creatorcontrib><collection>Istex</collection><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>STEM Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>British Nursing Index</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection (ProQuest)</collection><collection>BMJ Journals</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>British Nursing Index (BNI) (1985 to Present)</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>British Nursing Index</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Science Database</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA)</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>BMJ</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Grun, Lucia</au><au>Tassano-Smith, Julia</au><au>Carder, Caroline</au><au>Johnson, Anne M</au><au>Robinson, Angela</au><au>Murray, Elizabeth</au><au>Stephenson, Judith</au><au>Haines, Andrew</au><au>Copas, Andrew</au><au>Ridgway, Geoffrey</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Comparison of two methods of screening for genital chlamydial infection in women attending in general practice: cross sectional survey</atitle><jtitle>BMJ</jtitle><addtitle>BMJ</addtitle><date>1997-07-26</date><risdate>1997</risdate><volume>315</volume><issue>7102</issue><spage>226</spage><epage>230</epage><pages>226-230</pages><issn>0959-8138</issn><issn>0959-8146</issn><eissn>1468-5833</eissn><eissn>1756-1833</eissn><coden>BMJOAE</coden><abstract>Abstract Objectives: To estimate the prevalence of Chlamydia trachomatis in asymptomatic women attending general practice; to assess the potential of the ligase chain reaction as a screening tool; and to evaluate selective screening criteria. Design: Cross sectional survey. Setting: Four general practices in northeast London. Subjects: 890 women aged 18-35 years attending general practice for a cervical smear or a “young well woman” check between October 1994 and January 1996. The women were tested for C trachomatis with confirmed enzyme immunoassay (endocervical specimens) and ligase chain reaction assay on urine specimens. Main outcome measures: Prevalence of C trachomatis infection in women aged 18-35 on the basis of each test; sensitivity and specificity of both tests in this population. Results: Prevalence of confirmed infection was 2.6% (95% confidence interval 1.6% to 3.6%) in all women. Prevalence on the basis of enzyme immunoassay was 1.6% (0.8% to 2.7%), with a sensitivity of 60% and a specificity of 100%. Prevalence on the basis of ligase chain reaction was 2.5% (1.5% to 3.9%), with 90% sensitivity and 99.8% specificity. Screening all women aged ≤25 and all women who had had two or more partners in the past year would have detected 87% (20/23) of infections. Conclusion: Ligase chain reaction on urine samples performs at least as well as enzyme immunoassay on cervical specimens in this low prevalence population. It offers potential as a non-invasive screening tool. A simple selective screening strategy might be appropriate and would be able to detect most cases of infection. However, a rigorous economic evaluation of possible screening strategies is needed first. Key messages Chlamydia trachomatis causes a common sexually transmitted infection, which is often asymptomatic but may lead to pelvic inflammatory disease, ectopic pregnancy, and tubal infertility in 10%-25% of infected women Over 1 in 20 women aged 18-25 years attending general practice may have undiagnosed infection New screening tests that do not require a cervical sample should improve the prospects for community based screening for chlamydia Rigorous evaluation of the cost effectiveness of such screening is now a priority</abstract><cop>London</cop><pub>British Medical Journal Publishing Group</pub><pmid>9253271</pmid><doi>10.1136/bmj.315.7102.226</doi><tpages>5</tpages><edition>International edition</edition><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0959-8138 |
ispartof | BMJ, 1997-07, Vol.315 (7102), p.226-230 |
issn | 0959-8138 0959-8146 1468-5833 1756-1833 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_2127176 |
source | MEDLINE; Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA); JSTOR Archive Collection A-Z Listing; Alma/SFX Local Collection |
subjects | Adult Age Factors Biological and medical sciences Chlamydia Infections - diagnosis Chlamydia Infections - epidemiology Chlamydia Infections - urine Chlamydia trachomatis Cross-Sectional Studies Family Practice Female General aspects General practice Human infectious diseases. Experimental studies and models Humans Immunoenzyme techniques Infections Infectious diseases Ligase chain reaction Ligases - urine Mass Screening - methods Medical sciences Medical screening Multivariate Analysis Nurses Prevalence Screening tests Sexual Behavior Sexually transmitted diseases Specimens STD Urine Vaginal smears Vaginal Smears - methods Women |
title | Comparison of two methods of screening for genital chlamydial infection in women attending in general practice: cross sectional survey |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-13T05%3A45%3A45IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-jstor_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Comparison%20of%20two%20methods%20of%20screening%20for%20genital%20chlamydial%20infection%20in%20women%20attending%20in%20general%20practice:%20cross%20sectional%20survey&rft.jtitle=BMJ&rft.au=Grun,%20Lucia&rft.date=1997-07-26&rft.volume=315&rft.issue=7102&rft.spage=226&rft.epage=230&rft.pages=226-230&rft.issn=0959-8138&rft.eissn=1468-5833&rft.coden=BMJOAE&rft_id=info:doi/10.1136/bmj.315.7102.226&rft_dat=%3Cjstor_pubme%3E25175268%3C/jstor_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1777568677&rft_id=info:pmid/9253271&rft_jstor_id=25175268&rfr_iscdi=true |