You are seeing this message because your Web browser does not support basic Web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.


ABOUT JAMA
Advanced Search

Welcome   | My Account | E-mail Alerts | Access Rights | Sign In


  Vol. 260 No. 2, July 8, 1988 TABLE OF CONTENTS
  JAMA
  •  Online Features
  Original Contributions
 This Article
 •References
 •Full text PDF
 •Send to a friend
 • Save in My Folder
 •Save to citation manager
 •Permissions
 Citing Articles
 •Citation map
 •Citing articles on HighWire
 •Contact me when this article is cited
 Related Content
 •Similar articles in JAMA
 Social Bookmarking
  Add to CiteULike Add to Connotea Add to Del.icio.us Add to Digg Add to Reddit Add to Technorati Add to Twitter What's this?

Cost-effectiveness of Screening Women at Moderate Risk for Genital Infections Caused by Chlamydia trachomatis

Mary D. Nettleman, MD; Robert B. Jones, MD, PhD

JAMA. 1988;260(2):207-213.


Abstract

We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of screening women at moderate (prevalence, 7.9%) risk for urogenital infections with Chlamydia trachomatis. The characteristics of culture and direct antigen tests were based on published values. Those of serology were based on a comparative study in 434 college women. Three serological tests were evaluated: microimmunofluorescence, an indirect fluorescent antibody assay, and an enzyme-linked immunoassay. Their sensitivities and specificities were 97% and 64% 87% and 64%, and 84% and 51%, respectively, compared with culture. Screening all patients with a direct antigen test costing less than $12 was more cost-effective than neither testing nor treating patients, although only 53% of patients with positive test results would actually be infected. The use of culture alone or as a confirmatory test was less cost-effective but had high positive predictive values. Seropositivity was not highly predictive of active infection. Chlamydial screening can be cost-effective in moderate-risk women.

(JAMA 1988;260:207-213)



Author Affiliations

From the Department of Medicine, University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics, Iowa City (Dr Nettleman), and the Departments of Medicine, Microbiology, and Immunology, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis (Dr Jones).


Footnotes

Reprint requests to University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics, C 41 GH, Iowa City, IA 52242 (Dr Nettleman).



Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter     What's this?

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

Screening for Chlamydia trachomatis: a systematic review of the economic evaluations and modelling.
Roberts et al.
Sex. Transm. Infect. 2006;82:193-200.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Evidence-based guidelines for the management of genital chlamydial infection in general practice
Stokes et al.
Fam Pract 1999;16:269-277.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

A Decision Analysis to Guide Antibiotic Selection for Chlamydia Infection During Pregnancy
Hueston and Lenhart
Arch Fam Med 1997;6:551-555.
ABSTRACT  

Sexually Transmitted Diseases and Other Risk Factors for Cervical Dysplasia Among Southwestern Hispanic and Non-Hispanic White Women
Becker et al.
JAMA 1994;271:1181-1188.
ABSTRACT  

An Economic Evaluation of Screening for Chlamydia trachomatis in Adolescent Males
Genc et al.
JAMA 1993;270:2057-2064.
ABSTRACT  

Effectiveness and Efficiency of Selective vs Universal Screening for Chlamydial Infection in Sexually Active Young Women
Sellors et al.
Arch Intern Med 1992;152:1837-1844.
ABSTRACT  





HOME | CURRENT ISSUE | PAST ISSUES | TOPIC COLLECTIONS | CME | SUBMIT | SUBSCRIBE | HELP
CONDITIONS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
 
© 1988 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.