» Articles » PMID: 16731666

Screening for Chlamydia Trachomatis: a Systematic Review of the Economic Evaluations and Modelling

Overview
Date 2006 May 30
PMID 16731666
Citations 20
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
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.

Citing Articles

Young, deprived women are more at risk of testing positive for Chlamydia trachomatis: Results from a cross-sectional multicentre study in French health examination centres.

Labbe-Lobertreau E, Oriol M, Goethals L, Vincent I, Amsallem E Public Health Pract (Oxf). 2024; 8:100554.

PMID: 39554617 PMC: 11565415. DOI: 10.1016/j.puhip.2024.100554.


Evaluation of Chlamydia trachomatis screening from the perspective of health economics: a systematic review.

Yao H, Li C, Tian F, Liu X, Yang S, Xiao Q Front Public Health. 2023; 11:1212890.

PMID: 37881345 PMC: 10595018. DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2023.1212890.


Financing care for Severe Stigmatizing Skin Diseases (SSSDs) in Liberia: challenges and opportunities.

Smith Jr J, Diaconu K, Witter S, Weiland S, Zaizay F, Theobald S Int J Equity Health. 2022; 21(1):160.

PMID: 36376897 PMC: 9663287. DOI: 10.1186/s12939-022-01781-7.


Evaluation of the Predictive Value of Urine Leukocyte Esterase Test in and Infection Among Males Attending HIV/STI Clinics in Guangdong Province, China.

Yu X, Zhao P, Mai Z, Xu Q, Chen W, Wu Z Front Med (Lausanne). 2022; 9:858165.

PMID: 35386911 PMC: 8978786. DOI: 10.3389/fmed.2022.858165.


What is the effectiveness of community-based health promotion campaigns on chlamydia screening uptake in young people and what barriers and facilitators have been identified? A mixed-methods systematic review.

Pearce E, Jolly K, Harris I, Adriano A, Moore D, Price M Sex Transm Infect. 2021; 98(1):62-69.

PMID: 34446545 PMC: 8785066. DOI: 10.1136/sextrans-2021-055142.


References
1.
Katz B, Danos C, Quinn T, Caine V, Jones R . Efficiency and cost-effectiveness of field follow-up for patients with Chlamydia trachomatis infection in a sexually transmitted diseases clinic. Sex Transm Dis. 1988; 15(1):11-6. DOI: 10.1097/00007435-198801000-00003. View

2.
Honey E, Augood C, Templeton A, Russell I, Paavonen J, Mardh P . Cost effectiveness of screening for Chlamydia trachomatis: a review of published studies. Sex Transm Infect. 2002; 78(6):406-12. PMC: 1758346. DOI: 10.1136/sti.78.6.406. View

3.
Paavonen J, Puolakkainen M, Paukku M, Sintonen H . Cost-benefit analysis of first-void urine Chlamydia trachomatis screening program. Obstet Gynecol. 1998; 92(2):292-8. DOI: 10.1016/s0029-7844(98)00167-7. View

4.
Nettleman M, Jones R, Roberts S, Katz B, Washington A, Dittus R . Cost-effectiveness of culturing for Chlamydia trachomatis. A study in a clinic for sexually transmitted diseases. Ann Intern Med. 1986; 105(2):189-96. DOI: 10.7326/0003-4819-105-2-189. View

5.
Nettleman M, Jones R . Cost-effectiveness of screening women at moderate risk for genital infections caused by Chlamydia trachomatis. JAMA. 1988; 260(2):207-13. View