Format

Send to

Choose Destination
Clin Infect Dis. 2000 Oct;31(4):951-7. Epub 2000 Oct 25.

Home sampling versus conventional swab sampling for screening of Chlamydia trachomatis in women: a cluster-randomized 1-year follow-up study.

Author information

1
Department of Infectious Diseases, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark. larsostergaard@hotmail.com

Abstract

We compared the efficacy of a screening program for urogenital Chlamydia trachomatis infections based on home sampling with that of a screening program based on conventional swab sampling performed at a physician's office. Female subjects, comprising students at 17 high schools in the county of Aarhus, Denmark, were divided into a study group (tested by home sampling) and a control group (tested in a physician's office). We assessed the number of new infections and the number of subjects who reported being treated for pelvic inflammatory disease (PID) at 1 year of follow-up; 443 (51.1%) of 867 women in the intervention group and 487 (58.5%) of 833 women in the control group were available for follow-up. Thirteen (2.9%) and 32 (6.6%) new infections were identified in the intervention group and the control group, respectively (Wilcoxon exact value, P=.026). Nine (2.1%) women in the intervention group and 20 (4.2%) in the control group reported being treated for PID (P=.045), indicating that a screening strategy involving home sampling is associated with a lower prevalence of C. trachomatis and a lower proportion of reported cases of PID.

PMID:
11049776
DOI:
10.1086/318139
[Indexed for MEDLINE]

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Silverchair Information Systems
Loading ...
Support Center