Prevalence of urogenital Chlamydia trachomatis increases significantly with level of urbanisation and suggests targeted screening approaches: Results from the first national population based study in the Netherlands

Sexually Transmitted Infections

Volumn 81, Issue 1, 2005, Pages 17-23

  Van Bergen, J ^a,b   Gotz H M ^c   Richardus, J H ^c,f   Hoebe, C J P A ^d   Broer, J ^e   Coenen, A J T ^b  

^a STI AIDS   (Netherlands)

^b National Institute for STI and AIDS Control in the Netherlands   (Netherlands)

^c Public Health Service of the Rotterdam Region   (Netherlands)

^d Munic Pub Hlth Serv E S L   (Netherlands)

^e Municipal Public Health Service Groningen   (Netherlands)

^f ERASMUS MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; CHLAMYDIA TRACHOMATIS; CHLAMYDIASIS; ETHNOLOGY; FEMALE; GENERAL PRACTITIONER; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; NETHERLANDS; POLYMERASE CHAIN REACTION; POPULATION RESEARCH; PREVALENCE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUESTIONNAIRE; REVIEW; RURAL AREA; SCREENING TEST; SEXUALITY; SEXUALLY TRANSMITTED DISEASE; URBAN AREA; URBANIZATION; URINALYSIS;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; CHLAMYDIA INFECTIONS; CHLAMYDIA TRACHOMATIS; CONDOMS; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MASS SCREENING; NETHERLANDS; PATIENT ACCEPTANCE OF HEALTH CARE; POLYMERASE CHAIN REACTION; PREVALENCE; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; URBAN HEALTH;

EID: 13544271665     PISSN: 13684973     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/sti.2004.010173     Document Type: Review

References (40)

1. Global prevalence and incidence of selected curable sexually transmitted infections. Available at www.who.int (accessed October 2003).
2. Stamm WE. Chlamydia trachomatis infections of the adult. In: Holmes KK, Sparling PF, Mardh PA, eds. Sexually Transmitted Diseases, 3rd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1999.
3. Fleming DT, Wasserheit JN. From epidemiological synergy to public health policy and practice: the contribution of other sexually transmitted diseases to sexual transmission of HIV infection. Sex Transm Inf 1999;75:3-17.
4. Kamwendo F, Forslin L, Bodin L. Programmes to reduce pelvic inflammatory disease, the Swedish experience. Lancet 1998;351(Suppl 3):25-28.
5. Egger M, Low N, Smith GD. Screening for chlamydial infections and the risk of ectopic pregnancy in a county in Sweden: ecological analysis. BMJ 1998;316:1776-80.
6. Hillis SD, Nakashima A, Amsterdam L, et al. The impact of a compehensive chlamydia prevention program in Wisconsin. Fam Plann Perspect 1995;27:108-11.
7. Scholes D, Stergachis A, Heidrich FE, et al. Prevention of pelvic inflammatory disease by screening for chlamydial infection. New Eng J Med 1996;334:1362-7.
8. Østergaard L, Andersen B, Moller JK, et al. Home sampling versus conventional swab sampling for screening of Chlamydia trachomatis in women: A cluster-randomized 1-year follow-up study. Clin Infect Dis 2000;31:951-7.
9. Honey E, Augood C, Templeton A, et al. Cost effectiveness of screening for Chlamydia trachomatis: a review of published studies. Sex Transm Inf 2002;78:406-12.
10. Mardh PA. Is Europe ready for STD screening? Genitourin Med 1997;73:96-8.
11. Boag F, Kelly F. Screening for chlamydia trachomatis (editorial). BMJ 1998;316:1474-80.
12. Johnson AM, Grun L, Haines A. Controlling genital chlamydial infection: advances in diagnosis and treatment may make screening worthwhile. BMJ 1996;313:1160.
13. Stephenson JM. Screening for genital chlamydial infection. Br Med Bull 1998;54:891-902.
14. Catchpole M, Robinson A, Temple A. Chlamydia screening in the United Kingdom. Sex Transm Infect 2003;79:3-4.
15. Mehta SD, Shamanesh M, Zenilman JM. Spending money to save money. Sex Transm Infect 2003;79:4-6.
16. Van Valkengoed IG, Postma MJ, Morre SA, et al. Cost effectiveness analysis of a population based screening programme for asymptomatic Chlamydia trachomatis infections in women by means of home obtained urine specimens. Sex Transm Infect 2001;77:276-82.
17. The ClaSS study group. Evidence is not (yet) enough for evidence based policy of chlamydia screening. BMJ 2001;322:364-65.
18. Egger M, Low N. What should we do about screening for genital CT infections. Int J Epidemiology 2002;31:891-3.
19. Wilson JS, Honey E, Templeton A, et al. A systematic review op the prevalence of Chlamydia trachomatis among European women. Human Reprod Update 2002;8:385-94.
20. Pimenta JM, Catchpole M, Rogers PA, et al. Opportunistic screening for genital chlamydial infection. II: Prevalence among healthcare offenders, outcome, and evaluation of positive cases. Sex Transm Infect 2003;79:22-7.
21. Coenen AJ, Berends R, Van der Meijden WI. The organization of STI control in the Netherlands - an overview. Int J STD AIDS 2002;13:254-60.
22. Andersen B, Olesen F, Moller JK, et al. Population-based strategies for outreach screening of urogenital Chlamydia trachomatis infections: A randomized, controlled trial. J Infect Dis 2002;185:252-8.
23. Schachter J. DFA, EIA, PCR, LCR and other technologies: what tests should be used for diagnosis of chlamydia infections? Immunol Invest 1997;26:157-61.
24. Morre SA, Welte R, Postma MJ. Major improvements in cost effectiveness of screening women for Chlamydia trachomatis using pooled urine specimens and high performance testing. Sex Transm Infect 2002;78:74-5.
25. Snedecor GW, Cochran WG. Design and analysis of sampling. Chapter 17. Statistical Methods, 6th edn. Iowa State University Press, 1967.
26. Verhoeven V, Avonts D, Meheus A, et al. Chlamydial infection: an accurate model for opportunistic screening in general practice. Sex Transm Infect 2003;79:313-17.
27. Paukku M, Kilpikari R, Puolakkainen M, et al. Criteria for selective screening for Chlamydia trachomatis. Sex Transm Dis 2003;30:120-3.
28. Fenton KA, Duncan B, Hart GJ. Chlamydia screening and sexual health: are we failing heterosexual men? Sex Transm Infect 2002;78:396-7.
29. Hoek van den JAR, Mulder-Folkerts DKF, Coutinho RA, et al. Opportunististic screening for genital infections with Chlamydia trachomatis among the sexually active population in Amsterdam I. More than 90% participation and almost 5% prevalence. Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd 1999;143:668-72.
30. Van Valkengoed IGM, Boeke AJP, Brule van den AJC et al. Systematic screening for infections with Chlamydia trachomatis in asymptomatic men and women by postal urine specimen. Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd 1999;143:672-76.
31. Miller WC. Screening for chlamydial infection, a model based on prevalence. Sex Transm Dis 1998;25:201-11.
32. Götz H, van Bergen J, et al. Acceptability of screening for Chlamydia trachomatis by home based urine testing. ISSTDR abstract 376, Ottawa, 2003.
33. Marteau TM, Kinmonth AL. Screening for cardiovascular risk: public health imperative or matter for informed choice? BMJ 2002;325:78-80.
34. Getz L, Sigurdsson JA, Hetlevik I. Is opportunistic disease prevention in the consultation ethically justifiable? BMJ 2003;327:498-500.
35. Duncan B, Hart G. Qualitative analysis of psychosocial impact of diagnosis of Chlamydia trachomatis: implications for screening. BMJ 2001;322:195-99.
36. Grimes DA, Schultz K. Uses and abuses of screening tests. Lancet 2002;359:881-884.
37. Macleod J, Salisbury C (for the Chlamydia Screening Studies (ClaSS Study group). Prevalence of genital Chlamydia trachomatis infection in an UK general population sample. Sex Transm Infect 2003;79(suppl 1):A1.
38. Götz HM, van Bergen JEAM, Veldhuijzen IK, et al. A prediction rule for selective screening of Chlamydia trachomatis infection. Sex Transm Infect 2005;81:24-30.
39. Morre SA, Meijer CJ, Munk C, et al. Pooling of urine specimens for detection of asymptomatic Chlamydia trachomatis infections by PCR in a low-prevalence population: cost-saving strategy for epidemiological studies and screening programs. J Clin Microbiol 2000;38:1679-80.
40. Morre SA, van Dijk R, Meijer CJ, et al. Pooling cervical swabs for detection of Chlamydia trachomatis by PCR: sensitivity, dilution, inhibition, and cost-saving aspects. J Clin Microbiol 2001;39:2375-6.