Screening for Gonorrhea and Chlamydia: A Systematic Review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force

@article{Zakher2014ScreeningFG,
  title={Screening for Gonorrhea and Chlamydia: A Systematic Review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force},
  author={Bernadette Zakher and Amy G. Cantor and Miranda Pappas and Monica Daeges and Heidi D. Nelson},
  journal={Annals of Internal Medicine},
  year={2014},
  volume={161},
  pages={884-893}
}
In 2005, on the basis of epidemiologic studies of screening and studies of the diagnostic accuracy of screening tests (13), the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommended screening for gonorrhea in all sexually active or pregnant women at increased risk for infection (4). It recommended against routine screening in low-risk men and nonpregnant women and found insufficient evidence to recommend for or against routine screening in high-risk men and low-risk pregnant women. In 2007… 
Screening for Chlamydia and gonorrhea: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement.
  • M. LeFevre
  • Medicine
    Annals of internal medicine
  • 2014
TLDR
The current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of screening for chlamydia and gonorrhea in men, according to the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF).
Screening for chlamydia and/or gonorrhea in primary health care: systematic reviews on effectiveness and patient preferences
Background We conducted systematic reviews on the benefits and harms of screening compared with no screening or alternative screening approaches for Chlamydia trachomatis (CT) and Neisseria
Screening for chlamydia and/or gonorrhea in primary health care: protocol for systematic review
TLDR
The findings will be used by the CTFPHC—supplemented by consultations with patients and stakeholders and from other sources on issues of feasibility, acceptability, costs/resources, and equity―to inform recommendations on screening to support primary health care providers in delivering preventive care.
Sexually Transmitted Infections: Recommendations from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.
The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) has issued recommendations on behavioral counseling to prevent sexually transmitted infections (STIs) and recommendations about screening for
Is Screening for Chlamydia and Gonorrhea in Men Who Have Sex With Men Associated With Reduction of the Prevalence of these Infections? A Systematic Review of Observational Studies
TLDR
There is little evidence that screening for gonorrhea and chlamydia in MSM has an effect on the prevalence of these infections, and no evidence was found that more frequent screening reduces prevalence more effectively than annual screening.
Screening Peter to Save Paul: The Population-Level Effects of Screening Men Who Have Sex With Men for Gonorrhea and Chlamydia.
TLDR
There is little empirical evidence of the effectiveness of STD screening to reduce population-level STD prevalence among men who have sex with men (MSM), and their literature review provides an opportunity to reflect on why the authors screen individuals for STDs, how they measure the impact ofSTD screening, and how to better evaluate the populationlevel benefits of STD screenings in the absence of good data.
Screening is not associated with reduced incidence of gonorrhoea or chlamydia in men who have sex with men (MSM); an ecological study of 23 European countries.
TLDR
No evidence of a negative association between screening intensity and the prevalence of gonorrhoea or chlamydia in MSM is found, and Randomized controlled trials are urgently required to evaluate if the high antimicrobial exposure resulting from intensive screening programmes is justified.
Screening is not associated with reduced incidence of gonorrhoea or chlamydia in men who have sex with men (MSM); an ecological study of 23 European countries
TLDR
No evidence of a negative association between screening intensity and the prevalence of gonorrhoea or chlamydia in MSM is found, and Randomized controlled trials are urgently required to evaluate if the high antimicrobial exposure resulting from intensive screening programmes is justified.
Screening for Gonorrhea, Chlamydia, and Hepatitis B.
TLDR
Screening and early diagnosis have the potential to decrease both the complications and transmission of gonorrhea, chlamydia, and hepatitis B.
...
1
2
3
4
5
...

References

SHOWING 1-10 OF 53 REFERENCES
Screening for Chlamydial Infection U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement
TLDR
The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force concluded that the benefits of screening nonpregnant women at increased risk are substantial and that the evidence is insufficient to recommend for or against routinely screening men.
Screening for Chlamydial Infection: An Evidence Update for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force
TLDR
A systematic review of the evidence regarding the benefits and harms of screening for chlamydial infection in nonpregnant women, pregnant women, and men found less evidence regarding screening of pregnant women and recommended screening only for pregnant women at increased risk.
Selective screening for chlamydial infection: which criteria to use?
Screening for chlamydial infection.
Opportunistic screening for genital chlamydial infection. II: Prevalence among healthcare attenders, outcome, and evaluation of positive cases
TLDR
Prevalence of infection outside GUM clinics is substantial and opportunistic screening using urine samples is an acceptable method of reaching individuals with infection who do not normally present at specialist clinics.
Does population screening for Chlamydia trachomatis raise anxiety among those tested? Findings from a population based chlamydia screening study
TLDR
Postal screening for chlamydia does not appear to have a negative impact on overall psychological well-being and can lead to a decrease in anxiety levels among respondents, however, there is a clear difference between men and women in when this reduction occurs.
Epidemiological, social, diagnostic and economic evaluation of population screening for genital chlamydial infection.
TLDR
Proactive screening for chlamydia in women and men using home-collected specimens was feasible and acceptable and did not adversely affect anxiety, depression or self-esteem; however, screening was not cost-effective.
Recommendations for the laboratory-based detection of Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhoeae--2014.
TLDR
The performance of nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs) with respect to overall sensitivity, specificity, and ease of specimen transport is better than that of any of the other tests available for the diagnosis of chlamydial and gonococcal infections.
Home sampling versus conventional swab sampling for screening of Chlamydia trachomatis in women: a cluster-randomized 1-year follow-up study.
TLDR
A screening strategy involving home sampling is associated with a lower prevalence of C. trachomatis and a lower proportion of reported cases of pelvic inflammatory disease (PID), indicating that a Screening program based on conventional swab sampling performed at a physician's office is responsible for this effect.
Randomised controlled trial of screening for Chlamydia trachomatis to prevent pelvic inflammatory disease: the POPI (prevention of pelvic infection) trial
TLDR
Although some evidence suggests that screening for chlamYDial infection reduces rates of pelvic inflammatory disease, especially in women with chlamydial infection at baseline, the effectiveness of a single chlamydia test in preventing pelvicinflammatory disease over 12 months may have been overestimated.
...
1
2
3
4
5
...