Chlamydia trachomatis Load in Population-Based Screening and STI-Clinics: Implications for Screening Policy
Rattachement africain : nl. Niveau de preuve : code pays fourni par la source.
Le résumé fourni par la source
OBJECTIVES: If the Chlamydia trachomatis (CT) bacterial load is higher in high-risk populations than in the general population, this negatively affects the efficacy of CT screening incentives. In the largest retrospective study to date, we investigated the CT load in specimens collected from 2 cohorts: (1) attendants of a sexually transmitted infection (STI)-clinic and (2) participants of the Dutch population-based screening (PBS). METHODS: CT load was determined using quantitative PCR in CT-positive male urine and female cervicovaginal swabs. CT loads were converted into tertiles. Using multinominal logistic regression, independent association of cohort, symptoms, risk behaviour and human cell count on load were assessed. RESULTS: CT loads were determined in 889 CT-positives from PBS (n = 529; 71.8% female) and STI-clinics (n = 360; 61.7% female). In men, STI-clinic-cohort, human cell count and urethral discharge were positively associated with CT load. In women, PBS-cohort and cell count were positively associated with CT load. Both cohorts had the same range in CT load. CONCLUSIONS: The general population has a similar range of bacterial CT load as a high-risk population, but a different distribution for cohort and gender, highlighting the relevance of population-based CT-screening. When CT loads are similar, possibly the chances of transmission and sequelae are too.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Le contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- Chlamydia trachomatis Load in Population-Based Screening and STI-Clinics: Implications for Screening Policy
- Date Crossref
- 31/03/2015
- Éditeur
- Public Library of Science (PLoS)
- Type
- journal-article
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude, et il ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.
Les institutions déclarées
Une affiliation ne permet pas de déduire la nationalité d’un auteur.