↓ Skip to main content

Screening for genital chlamydia infection

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (91st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (73rd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
21 tweeters
facebook
3 Facebook pages
googleplus
2 Google+ users

Citations

dimensions_citation
27 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
8 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Screening for genital chlamydia infection
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd010866.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nicola Low, Shelagh Redmond, Anneli Uusküla, Jan van Bergen, Helen Ward, Berit Andersen, Hannelore Götz

Abstract

Genital infections caused by Chlamydia trachomatis are the most prevalent bacterial sexually transmitted infection worldwide. Screening of sexually active young adults to detect and treat asymptomatic infections might reduce chlamydia transmission and prevent reproductive tract morbidity, particularly pelvic inflammatory disease (PID) in women, which can cause tubal infertility and ectopic pregnancy. To assess the effects and safety of chlamydia screening versus standard care on chlamydia transmission and infection complications in pregnant and non-pregnant women and in men. We searched the Cochrane Sexually Transmitted Infections Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, CINAHL, DARE, PsycINFO and Web of Science electronic databases up to 14 February 2016, together with World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry (ICTRP) and ClinicalTrials.gov. We also handsearched conference proceedings, contacted trial authors and reviewed the reference lists of retrieved studies. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in adult women (non-pregnant and pregnant) and men comparing a chlamydia screening intervention with usual care and reporting on a primary outcome (C. trachomatis prevalence, PID in women, epididymitis in men or incidence of preterm delivery). We included non-randomised controlled clinical trials if there were no RCTs for a primary outcome. Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias. We resolved disagreements by consensus or adjudication by a third reviewer. We described results in forest plots and conducted meta-analysis where appropriate using a fixed-effect model to estimate risk ratios (RR with 95% confidence intervals, CI) in intervention vs control groups. We conducted a pre-specified sensitivity analysis of the primary outcome, PID incidence, according to the risks of selection and detection bias. We included six trials involving 359,078 adult women and men. One trial was at low risk of bias in all six specific domains assessed. Two trials examined the effect of multiple rounds of chlamydia screening on C. trachomatis transmission. A cluster-controlled trial in women and men in the general population in the Netherlands found no change in chlamydia test positivity after three yearly invitations (intervention 4.1% vs control 4.3%, RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.09, 1 trial, 317,304 participants at first screening invitation, low quality evidence). Uptake of the intervention was low (maximum 16%). A cluster-randomised trial in female sex workers in Peru found a reduction in chlamydia prevalence after four years (adjusted RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.98, 1 trial, 4465 participants, low quality evidence).Four RCTs examined the effect of chlamydia screening on PID in women 12 months after a single screening offer. In analysis of four trials according to the intention-to-treat principle, the risk of PID was lower in women in intervention than control groups, with little evidence of between-trial heterogeneity (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.94, I(2) 7%, 4 trials, 21,686 participants, moderate quality evidence). In a sensitivity analysis, the estimated effect of chlamydia screening in two RCTs at low risk of detection bias (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.17) was compatible with no effect and was lower than in two RCTs at high or unclear risk of detection bias (RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.83).The risk of epididymitis in men invited for screening, 12 months after a single screening offer, was 20% lower risk for epididymitis than in those not invited; the confidence interval was wide and compatible with no effect (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.42, 1 trial, 14,980 participants, very low quality evidence).We found no RCTs of the effects of chlamydia screening in pregnancy and no trials that measured the harms of chlamydia screening. Evidence about the effects of screening on C. trachomatis transmission is of low quality because of directness and risk of bias. There is moderate quality evidence that detection and treatment of chlamydia infection can reduce the risk of PID in women at individual level. There is an absence of RCT evidence about the effects of chlamydia screening in pregnancy.Future RCTs of chlamydia screening interventions should determine the effects of chlamydia screening in pregnancy, of repeated rounds of screening on the incidence of chlamydia-associated PID and chlamydia reinfection in general and high risk populations.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 21 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 8 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 8 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 1 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 13%
Professor > Associate Professor 1 13%
Unspecified 1 13%
Unknown 4 50%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Unspecified 1 13%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 13%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 13%
Design 1 13%
Unknown 4 50%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 21. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 20 February 2017.
All research outputs
#672,202
of 12,527,219 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,233
of 8,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#23,140
of 262,248 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#48
of 178 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,527,219 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,923 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 262,248 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 178 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.