Relative Cost-Effectiveness of Different Tests for Chlamydia trachomatis
Authors: Sue J. Goldie, Delphine Hu, Edward W. Hook
Journal: Annals of Internal Medicine (2005)

Letters15 February 2005Relative Cost-Effectiveness of Different Tests for Chlamydia trachomatisSue J. Goldie, MD, MPH, Delphine Hu, MD, MPH, and Edward W. Hook III, MDSue J. Goldie, MD, MPHFrom Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, MA 02115, and University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL 35294.Search for more papers by this author, Delphine Hu, MD, MPHFrom Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, MA 02115, and University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL 35294.Search for more papers by this author, and Edward W. Hook III, MDFrom Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, MA 02115, and University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL 35294.Search for more papers by this authorAuthor, Article, and Disclosure Informationhttps://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-142-4-200502150-00020 SectionsAboutFull TextPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissions ShareFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail IN RESPONSE:We appreciate Dr. Jackson's interest and comment. We believe that our model has the potential to help inform many questions relating to chlamydia screening and chose to start by exploring the impact of different approaches to routine screening for young women from a long-term, societal perspective. Our analysis was intended to inform broad recommendations for national screening guidelines, with particular emphasis on optimal target age range and frequency. At the same time, a wide variety of diagnostic tests are available for C. trachomatis detection, including cell culture, antigen-detection tests, nucleic acid hybridization tests, and, most recently, nucleic acid ...References1. Watson EJ, Templeton A, Russell I, Paavonen J, Mardh PA, Stary A, et al. The accuracy and efficacy of screening tests for Chlamydia trachomatis: a systematic review. J Med Microbiol. 2002;51:1021-31. [PMID: 12466399] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar2. Nsuami M, Cohen DA. Participation in a school-based sexually transmitted disease screening program. Sex Transm Dis. 2000;27:473-9. [PMID: 10987455] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar3. Wiesenfeld HC, Lowry DL, Heine RP, Krohn MA, Bittner H, Kellinger K, et al. Self-collection of vaginal swabs for the detection of Chlamydia, gonorrhea, and trichomoniasis: opportunity to encourage sexually transmitted disease testing among adolescents. Sex Transm Dis. 2001;28:321-5. [PMID: 11403188] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar4. Stamm WE. Chlamydia screening: expanding the scope [Editorial]. Ann Intern Med. 2004;141:570-2. [PMID: 15466776] LinkGoogle Scholar Author, Article, and Disclosure InformationAffiliations: From Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, MA 02115, and University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL 35294.Disclosures: Dr. Hook has received research support from Abbott Laboratories; Roche Molecular Systems, Inc.; Gen-Probe; and Becton, Dickinson, & Co. and honoraria from Abbott Laboratories and Gen-Probe. PreviousarticleNextarticle Advertisement FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsSee AlsoScreening for Chlamydia trachomatis in Women 15 to 29 Years of Age: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Delphine Hu , Edward W. Hook III , and Sue J. Goldie Chlamydia Screening: Expanding the Scope Walter E. Stamm Relative Cost-Effectiveness of Different Tests for Chlamydia trachomatis Brian Jackson Metrics 15 February 2005Volume 142, Issue 4Page: 308-309KeywordsCell culturesChlamydiaChlamydia trachomatisConflicts of interestDecision makingHealth screeningNucleic acidsPrevention, policy, and public healthScreening guidelinesYoung adults ePublished: 15 February 2005 Issue Published: 15 February 2005 CopyrightCopyright © 2005 by American College of Physicians. All Rights Reserved.PDF DownloadLoading ...