Talk:Chlamydia

message: The page koala claims that koalas can have chlamydia. Aside from the obvious dirty jokes, some information about chlamydia in non-human species might be relevant here. --FOo 17:12, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: There are many different types of Chlamydia.  The STD (and the type that causes conjunctivitis in neonates,) is C. trachomatis.  The types that koalas get are C. pecorum and C. pneumoniae.  Humans also get other types of Chlamydia besides C. trachomatis.Walking Softly 03:24, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Other animals

message: As far I’m concerned I think taxonomical names must be written in italic text, as the following: Escherichia coli or E. coli. Please, revise than question.
The Veronica Mars paragraph is irrelevant for this topic and should be removed. 15:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orthography 

message: In the article, I read the following sentence: 
:Appendicitis, ectopic pregnancy, septic abortion, hemorrhagic or ruptured ovarian cysts or tumors, twisted ovarian cyst, degeneration of a myoma, and acute enteritis must be considered. 
Can someone replace the that sentence with a clearer explanation. The sentence tells me to consider several unpleasant conditions, or at least that someone must consider them. I wonder who must consider these conditions, when must they be considered, and why must these conditions be considered. 
Moreover, it does not become clear whether the fact that these conditions must be considered has any relationship with the subject off this article, which is Chlamydia. I suppose it has, because someone wrote that sentence in this article and not in the article Influenza. 
One more thing, could someone also explain how these conditions must be considered? Is it okay if I just lean back in my chair for five minutes, and quitly consider appendicitis and that other stuff? Or should something else be done as well? And I would welcome some links from those hard words to some applicable Wikipedia articles as well. Johan Lont 11:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The unclear sentence originates from this edit. Johan Lont 12:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have further investigated the origins from that sentence. It seems to come from some edits done from IP-address 86.43.65.247 on February 6, 2007. Looks like nonsense. For example, the next sentence was cut off halfway. I will delete those edits. Johan Lont 12:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Unclear sentence

message: Can someone go into more detail about the "unusual discharge"? What is it? What is it made up of? Flashpoint145 02:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Unusual discharge" 

message: Why does the page list a treatment (Ciprofloxacin) which comes under the heading 'untested' and a disclaimer saying it is shown to be ineffective? I don't see what this adds to the article apart from a disclaimer that breaks the layout due to not wrapping, unless this is a common treatment and listed to inform people of its lack of efficacy —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.152.221.253 (talk) 22:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Untested Treatments 

message: If you have a buring sensation while urinating dose it mean you deffinetly have a STD? Thank you in advance! Sorry about the spelling!
It would not necessarily be an STD.  Burning during or after urination could indicate an STD, a urinary tract infection, or irritation of the urethra, BUT - If in doubt, get it checked out, untreated STDs can lead to fertility problems. BruceD270 16:42, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Burning 

message: Is it true that they put something in the eyes of babies when they are born to kill off this disease?
:In the U.S. it is Silver nitrate (1%) or Erythromycin (0.5%) or Tetracycline ophthalmic ointment (1%) according to the CDC.gov 2002 site. BruceD270 15:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Eyes

message: What is the procedure for determining if someone has Chlamydia? Is it a standard blood test?
:In the U.S., I would say most physicians diagnose it based on signs & symptoms (but co-infection with gonorrhea must be suspected).  To confirm the diagnosis, there are a few options 1) PCR of clean-catch urine (as on the wikipage) 2) Culture/gram stain of urethral/cervical swab or conjunctival scraping, but these must contain epithelial cells, as chlamydia is an obligate intracellular.  BruceD270 16:06, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi.  I tried to add this bit b/c the part about diagnosis is really weird.  But I'm new and when I tried adding it, it totally messed the page up.  Here it is if someone can add it for me!--> In addition, due to its high specificity (100%) and high sensitivity, cell culture remains the only method that should be used for testing when possible legal implications may be involved. Giemsa stains or immunofluorescent staining with monoclonal antibodies (never gram stains) are used to view the intracytoplasmic inclusions in the cell cultures. (Btw, you can reference the eMedicine page that I already added to the references.)Walking Softly 03:24, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Diagnosis

message: The term "Reiter's syndrome" is absolutely still used.  Sorry to hear about Reiter's association with Nazi's, but docs still use it and it's still taught in med schools and tested on the boards.  The thing is, you can't apply it to simple reactive arthritis caused by chlamydia or gonorrhea.  Reiter's syndrome refers to the triad (MUST have all 3 parts--you can't say patient has Reiter's syndrome minus conjunctivitis or some silliness like that) of reactive arthritis, conjunctivitis, and urethritis.  
Can we take this bit out and instead explain what true Reiter's syndrome is or at least explain what reactive arthritis is?  
Btw, reactive arthritis is something that could be avoided if the chlamydia/gonorrhea were treated immediately with antibiotics, but after the arthrtitis has established itself, it's really its own entitity, and must be treated like regular arthritis.  Walking Softly 16:20, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reiter's syndrome 

message: Please look up facts and add citations where you can.  There should be footnotes all over this page, and there are only TWO at present.  Thank you:)  Walking Softly 14:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're an angel, User:DO11.10.  Thanks for your work on this. Walking Softly 22:18, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  We Need CITATIONS!!  (References) 

message: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Pap_smear_showing_clamydia_in_the_vacuoles_500x_H%26E.jpg
I don't know what this is, but it's not chlamydia if it's H&E staining.  Chlamydia in culture has to be stained with Geimsa stains or direct fluorescence antibody (see http://eyemicrobiology.upmc.com/Chlamydia.htm).  If you disagree and want to say that H&E is possible, please reference a site.  I really don't think it's possible.  Geimsa can look like H&E, and I'm not the best with lab stuff, so I don't want to be the authority on this one, but I really think the picture and caption should at least be checked with an expert. Walking Softly 22:58, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Staining 

message: I disagree with the recent change stating that "Chlamydophila Infections" (e.g., Psittacosis) are also known as "Chlamydia", using MeSH as the reference. Please look closer at this link, and this one. (They could both be described as Chlamydiaceae infections, but I don't think such a page is needed at this time.) --Arcadian 00:38, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Technically, you are correct, and I suppose Wiki should be putting out the information on what is correct instead of bowing to the pressure of the physicians and popular media of the world who insist on calling it by the old name.  I had already been the sites you linked to--and had actually added them as references, but then took them out when I realized that they don't include anything but the human species, and actually only 2 of them.  The chart User:DC011.1 found (see above) is much better.  Also, check out the link I included on this Talk page that explains the debate.  Unfortunately, neither is a particularly good reference for this (article) page.  At any rate, I will rewrite that particular sentence (if you have not already), but I would still very much like you to include the individual Chlamydophila species (or at least Chlamydophila) on the disambiguation page you created.  A good part of the world is not yet up to speed on this issue.  Thank you for your continued consideration of this topic. Walking Softly 02:07, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to expand the disambiguation page as needed (a style guideline is available at Wikipedia:Disambiguation.) --Arcadian 05:46, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Chlamydophila

message: The split of the genus into Chlamydia and Chlamydophila has been shown to be an erroneous inference based on a single gene, 16S rRNA.  Subsequent complete genome sequencing showed that Chlamydophila and Chlamydia are not a monophyletic genera, and it is proposed that the original genus Chlamydia be restored.
"The previous taxonomic separation of the genus
based on ribosomal sequences is neither consistent with the natural history of the
organism revealed by genome comparisons, nor widely used by the Chlamydia
research community 8 years after its introduction; thus, it is proposed to reunite
the Chlamydiaceae into a single genus, Chlamydia."Stephens, R.S., Myers, G., Eppinger, M. and Bavoil, P.M., 2009. Divergence without difference: phylogenetics and taxonomy of Chlamydia resolved. FEMS Immunology & Medical Microbiology, 55(2), pp.115-119.
"Glossary. Chlamydiaceae: a family of obligate intracellular bacteria that once included
two genera, Chlamydia and Chlamydophila, but has since been revised to the
single genus Chlamydia"Bachmann, N.L., Polkinghorne, A. and Timms, P., 2014. Chlamydia genomics: providing novel insights into chlamydial biology. Trends in Microbiology, 22(8), pp.464-472.
"We conclude that neither generally used 16S rRNA sequence identity cut-off values nor parameters based on genomic similarity consistently separate the two genera.  Notably, no easily recognizable phenotype such as host preference or tissue tropism is available that would support a subdivision. In addition, the genus Chlamydophila is currently not well accepted and not used by a majority of research groups in the field. Therefore, we propose the classification of all currently recognized Chlamydiaceae species in a single genus, the genus Chlamydia."Sachse, K., Bavoil, P.M., Kaltenboeck, B., Stephens, R.S., Kuo, C.C., Rosselló-Móra, R. and Horn, M., 2015. Emendation of the family Chlamydiaceae: proposal of a single genus, Chlamydia, to include all currently recognized species. Systematic and applied microbiology, 38(2), pp.99-103.
--Canavalia  00:36, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: 2018 Taxonomic Status

message: This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 16:25, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject class rating

message: Penultimate row of "Deaths per 100,000 table should read "100-110" instead of "100-90"
82.12.14.140 (talk) 22:09, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Done Welcome to Wikipedia, it is now fixed, thanks for pointing it out, jonkerz♠ 22:25, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request from 82.12.14.140, 17 May 2010 

message: Please change "(Although this is not an approved method of treatment.)" to "Due to the high risk of relapsing infection ciprofloxacin should not be used as a treatment of chlamydia infection." under Treatment, Untested treatments. 
Please change "Untested treatments" to "Non-approved treatments"
Sources:
Fong IW, Linton W, Simbul M, Thorup R, McLaughlin B, Rahm V, Quinn PA. Treatment of nongonococcal urethritis with ciprofloxacin. Am J Med. 1987 Apr 27;82(4A):311-6. 
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3555054
CIPROFLOXACIN IS INADEQUATE FOR CHLAMYDIAL URETHRITIS
JWatch General 1990;1990:4-4. 
http://genmed.jwatch.org/cgi/content/full/1990/1002/4
Persistence of Chlamydia trachomatis Is Induced by Ciprofloxacin and Ofloxacin In Vitro.
Ute Dreses-Werringloer, Ingrid Padubrin, Barbara Jürgens-Saathoff, Alan P. Hudson, H. Zeidler and L. Köhler. Department of Rheumatology, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany and Department of Immunology and Microbiology, Wayne State University School of Medicine, Detroit, Michigan. 2000.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC90194/
124.157.108.202 (talk) 02:33, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:38, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:    Salvio  Let's talk 'bout it! 14:44, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request from 124.157.108.202, 16 September 2010 

message: Add a section on prevention. Jidanni (talk) 02:12, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Prevention

message: Add the IPA pronunciation. Is it read "CLAM"-? Jidanni (talk) 02:12, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.  Sorry for the seven-year wait for this.  A loose necktie (talk) 02:11, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Pronunciation

message: "Chlamydial infection of the neck of the womb (cervicitis) is a sexually transmitted infection ... The infection can be passed through vaginal, anal, or oral sex."
Is this true? Infection of the cervix is systemic, affecting the mucus of the rectum, and so fucking her in the ass can pass the infection?  I think the sentence was misplaced from elsewhere in the article.98.111.146.18 (talk) 10:16, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  misplaced sentence 

message: Section: Epidemiology
Figure: Age-standardized death from chlamydia per 100,000 inhabitants in 2004
The bit "death from chlamydia per 100,000 inhabitants" is AWFULLY WRONG as the original data source clearly states it's DALYs and not deaths -DALY is "disability-adjusted life year"-
I'm asking the figure and references to be deleted as I fail to see how an editor might manage to get some useful, clear and short explanation using DALY to match the level of the article.
[English is not my first language]
186.137.164.45 (talk) 16:24, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: caption fixed. -- Diannaa (talk) 00:59, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 14 January 2014 

message: * Freetest.me – Postal testing service in England, funded by the NHS.
Hi, I think there should be a mention of and a link to freetest.me which is a service launched in 2008 in the UK to request free Chlamydia postal tests (home sampling lab tests). It's free and funded by the NHS and now tests over 100,000 patients annually. This would be relevant to UK visitors, and may be of interest to others.
Deggle (talk) 21:19, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: Wikipedia is not a directory or collection of links. While this may be useful for UK visitors, it would lead to needing to list the site(s) for every country that has such a program. -- ferret (talk) 01:29, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Online Screening in UK - Request for external link reinstatement. 

message: For sexually active women who are not pregnant, screening is recommended in those under 25 and others at risk of infection. Risk factors include a history of chlamydial or other sexually transmitted infection, new or multiple sexual partners, and inconsistent condom use. The Faculty of Sexual and Reproductive Healthcare (FSRH) Clinical Guidance recommends that 100% of women attending for emergency contraceptive are offered the opportunity for Chlamydia testing, because studies showed up to 9.1% of women aged <25 years presenting for emergency contraceptive had Chlamydia trachomatis.</ref>
Wongplusma (talk) 04:46, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks User:Wongplusma and addeed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:03, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Screening

message: Please change "Chlamydia can be transmitted during vaginal, anal, or oral sex. Chlamydia can also be passed from an infected mother to her baby during vaginal childbirth." To "Chlamydia can be transmitted during vaginal, anal, or oral sex. Chlamydia can also be passed from an infected mother to her baby during vaginal childbirth. This can cause an eye infection or pneumonia in the new born. Having chlamydia may also make it more likely to deliver the baby too early." http://www.cdc.gov/std/Chlamydia/STDFact-Chlamydia.htm
173.168.8.203 (talk) 22:21, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 26 April 2016 

message: In “Prevention” (in the intro, before the table of contents), I would like to change “having sex with one other person who is not infected” to “only having sex with people that are not infected”. The way it is currently written makes it sound as if having sex with a non-infected partner magically protects you.
178.83.188.253 (talk) 22:41, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done for now: I see what you're saying, but the sentence does make sense. If you only have sex with one other person who is not infected, then you won't get chlamydia. So it's not magical, but true. If the only person you are having sex with is not infected, then you won't get chlamydia. Sir Joseph (talk) 16:31, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: But to say "only have sex with people who are not infected" is equally as true. Having sex with one uninfected person is no safer than having sex with multiple uninfected persons. The current implication is that one uninfected partner is safer than many uninfected parterns, which isn't true. Limiting it to "one person" is an unnecessary restriction, like saying you will lower your risk of HIV if you wear a condom during sex and sing the Macarena before doing it. I mean, it's still true... 46.254.248.170 (talk) 22:04, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: You are, of course, correct. The current wording does seem to bizarrely imply that having sex with just one uninfected partner is somehow magically safer than any other number of uninfected partners. My understanding is that the wording is derived from the CDC ref which answers the question "How can I reduce my risk of getting chlamydia?" by saying you can either use condoms correctly or "Being in a long-term mutually monogamous relationship with a partner who has been tested and has negative STD test results". So in a sense our source does say that you can reduce your risk by having sex with just one person who is uninfected. It should be easy to find a ref that says more generally what you're proposing. I'll poke around. If not, perhaps we could change it anyway on the grounds that it's obviously implied by the reference? Thoughts? Ajpolino (talk) 01:46, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that this is worded rather wrongly, as if any other combination isn't possibly safe. To be blunt, it almost sounds as if someone is pushing for monogamy rather than trying to actually state methods of prevention. Odin Vex (talk) 23:46, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 26 June 2016 

message: I know that both Chlamydia infection and Lymphogranuloma venerum are both caused by Chlamydia trachomatis, and I know they are separate diseases. If I remember right it is because of a difference in serotypes, but it is not clear in the article. I was wondering if someone who knows the topic better can flesh that part out.  Thanks,  D.c.camero (talk) 17:48, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: It is written in Chlamydia_trachomatis. Ruslik_Zero 20:35, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Distinction between LGV and Chlamydia 

message: This article has multiple paragraphs where several sentences in a row all have the same reference at the end. This is unnecessary - one reference can apply for several consecutive sentences, as WP:CITEDENSE makes clear. It also makes the text very uninviting to read, constantly and unnecessarily punctuated with those reference links. I attempted to correct one paragraph, only to have a user undo me. How do others feel about this use? --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:41, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Repeated references 

message: The third sentence of the introduction now reads: "When symptoms do appear in can be several weeks after infection". The "in" should of course be "it". 77.164.133.132 (talk) 15:35, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed, thanks. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:53, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  spelling error in intro 

message: The intro mentioned 50-70 percent of women don't have any symptoms. One paragraph below that, "Silent epidemic" because 70_80 percent are asymptomatic. (Inconsistent)
Urinary urgency: urge to urinate more than often?  
Urge to urinate( urgency)
Urinate more than often (frequency) Professor Fox & Dr B (talk) 10:27, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chlamydia (Sign and Symptoms) 

message: https://sti.bmj.com/content/87/Suppl_1/A175.2
July 2011.
Title: 
P1-S5.02 Towards more robust estimates of the per sex act transmission probability of Chlamydia trachomatis 
Results: 
The data showed similar proportions of infected female partners of infected men and infected male partners of infected women, suggesting similar transmission probabilities. Assuming an average infectious duration of 12 months for women and men, we obtained best-fit estimates for the transmission rate (0.0064 per day) and average duration of partnerships (6.0 months) in the study. The transmission rate per day corresponds to a per sex act transmission probability of 4.5%, assuming one unprotected episode of coitus per week in a partnership. Our analysis also shows that these estimates depend on the assumed infectious duration of chlamydia.
...
https://sti.bmj.com/content/95/2/115
March 2019.
Title: Does infection with Chlamydia trachomatis induce long-lasting partial immunity? Insights from mathematical modelling 
Results:
Partial immunity against reinfection was found necessary to explain observed C. trachomatis prevalence patterns by age and sexual risk. The reduction in susceptibility to reinfection was estimated at 93% using UK data (95% uncertainty interval (UI)=88%–97%) and at 67% using US data (95% UI=24%–88%). The model-structure sensitivity analyses affirmed model predictions. The immunity-mechanism sensitivity analyses suggested a mechanism of susceptibility reduction against reinfection or a mechanism of infectious-period duration reduction upon reinfection.
Conclusions:
A strong long-lasting partial immunity against C. trachomatis reinfection should be present to explain observed prevalence patterns. The mechanism of immunity could be either a reduction in susceptibility to reinfection or a reduction in duration of infection on reinfection. C. trachomatis infection appears to naturally elicit a strong long-lasting immune response, supporting the concept of vaccine development.
...
STI / STD testing is probably never 100% accurate, so please retest some time later if you are in high risk.
--ee1518 (talk) 21:25, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Long-lasting immunity from infection? Maybe 88% protection. // Transmission probability for each intercourse? Maybe 4.5% risk. 

message: In other news, prevention of cholera is by not eating and prevention of covid is by not breathing. The description of prevention should include reasonable and likely measures, not absurdly exaggerated recommendations that the religious Right has formulated in hopes of scaring whatever teenager happens to read this page into never having sex and becoming a monk or a nun. --178.249.169.67 (talk) 06:15, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Prevention is by not having sex' 

message: GenevaJones (talk) 04:00, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the  template. Please see WP:NOTCENSORED. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 04:18, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 14 February 2022 

message: I think we should revert this edit, as the CDC explicitly mentions monogamous relationships, or if not changing it to another high quality source that mentions non-monogamous relationships. Uwsi (talk) 19:26, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I have reverted this change so the article matches the CDC reference, there was a discussion about this topic before, and there was no consensus to make this change anyway (Talk:Chlamydia#Semi-protected_edit_request_on_26_June_2016) Uwsi (talk) 04:19, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prevention 

message: Chlamydia, which originated in the body of a female known as Josie Greiner, is one of the most powerful STDs known to man. 2600:1014:B131:2186:5A5:98E1:CBA:B658 (talk) 00:41, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: What the heck are you talking about? Tom950 (talk) 21:51, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chlamydia 

message: — Assignment last updated by Mbl5581 (talk) 17:00, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Plagues and People