Periodic health examination, 1996 update: 2. Screening for chlamydial infections

H. Dele Davies, Elaine E.L. Wang, John W. Feightner, Richard Goldbloom, Geoffrey Anderson, Renaldo N. Battista, Marie Dominique Beaulieu, R. Wayne Elford, William Feldman, Alexander G. Logan, Brenda Morrison, David R. Offord, Christopher Patterson, Walter O. Spitzer, Phillip Mickelson, Jennifer Dingle

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

46 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective: To update the 1984 recommendations of the Canadian Task Force on the Periodic Health Examination on the routine screening of asymptomatic patients for infection with Chlamydia trachomatis. Options: Screening, with the use of culture or nonculture tests, of the general population, of certain high-risk groups or of all pregnant women; or no routine screening. Outcomes: Rates of asymptomatic and symptomatic chlamydial infection, perinatal complications, long-term complications of infection (i.e., pelvic inflammatory disease, infertility and ectopic pregnancy), coinfection with other sexually transmitted diseases, disease spread, hospital care, complications of therapy and costs of infection and of screening. Evidence: Search of MEDLINE For articles published between Jan. 1, 1983, and Dec. 31, 1995, with the use of the major MeSH heading 'chlamydial infections,' references from recent review articles and recommendations by other organizations. Values: The evidence-based methods of the Canadian Task Force on the Periodic Health Examination were used. Advice from reviewers and experts and recommendations of other organizations were taken into consideration. Prevention of symptomatic disease and decreased overall costs were given high values. Benefits, harms and costs: The greatest potential benefits of screening asymptomatic patients for chlamydial infections are the prevention of: complications, especially infertility and perinatal complications, and the prevention of disease spread. There is no evidence that screening of the general population for chlamydial infections leads to a reduction in complications, and screening may increase costs. However, there is evidence that annual screening of selected high-risk groups and of pregnant women during the first trimester is beneficial in preventing symptoms and reducing the overall cost resulting from infection. Recommendations: There is fair evidence to support screening and treatment of pregnant women during the first trimester (grade B recommendation); as well as annual screening and treatment of high-risk groups (sexually active women less than 25 years of age, men or women with new or multiple sexual partners during the preceding year, women who use nonbarrier contraceptive methods and women who have symptoms of chlamydial infection: cervical friability, mucopurulent cervical discharge or intermenstrual bleeding; grade B recommendation). There is fair evidence to exclude routine screening of the general population (grade D recommendation). Validation: These recommendations are similar to those of the US Preventive Services Task Force and the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta. Sponsor: These guidelines were developed and endorsed by the Canadian Task Force on the Periodic Health Examination, which is funded by Health Canada and the National Health Research and Development Program. The principal author (H.D.D.) was supported in part by the Ontario Ministry of Health and the Canadian Infectious Diseases Society Lilly Fellowship.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1631-1644
Number of pages14
JournalCMAJ
Volume154
Issue number11
StatePublished - Jun 25 1996

Fingerprint

Health
Advisory Committees
Infection
Costs and Cost Analysis
Pregnant Women
Sexual Partners
First Pregnancy Trimester
Infertility
Organizations
Medical Subject Headings
Population
Pelvic Inflammatory Disease
Metrorrhagia
Asymptomatic Infections
Ectopic Pregnancy
Chlamydia trachomatis
Ontario
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (U.S.)
Sexually Transmitted Diseases
Coinfection

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

Davies, H. D., Wang, E. E. L., Feightner, J. W., Goldbloom, R., Anderson, G., Battista, R. N., ... Dingle, J. (1996). Periodic health examination, 1996 update: 2. Screening for chlamydial infections. CMAJ, 154(11), 1631-1644.

Periodic health examination, 1996 update : 2. Screening for chlamydial infections. / Davies, H. Dele; Wang, Elaine E.L.; Feightner, John W.; Goldbloom, Richard; Anderson, Geoffrey; Battista, Renaldo N.; Beaulieu, Marie Dominique; Elford, R. Wayne; Feldman, William; Logan, Alexander G.; Morrison, Brenda; Offord, David R.; Patterson, Christopher; Spitzer, Walter O.; Mickelson, Phillip; Dingle, Jennifer.

In: CMAJ, Vol. 154, No. 11, 25.06.1996, p. 1631-1644.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

Davies, HD, Wang, EEL, Feightner, JW, Goldbloom, R, Anderson, G, Battista, RN, Beaulieu, MD, Elford, RW, Feldman, W, Logan, AG, Morrison, B, Offord, DR, Patterson, C, Spitzer, WO, Mickelson, P & Dingle, J 1996, 'Periodic health examination, 1996 update: 2. Screening for chlamydial infections', CMAJ, vol. 154, no. 11, pp. 1631-1644.
Davies HD, Wang EEL, Feightner JW, Goldbloom R, Anderson G, Battista RN et al. Periodic health examination, 1996 update: 2. Screening for chlamydial infections. CMAJ. 1996 Jun 25;154(11):1631-1644.
Davies, H. Dele ; Wang, Elaine E.L. ; Feightner, John W. ; Goldbloom, Richard ; Anderson, Geoffrey ; Battista, Renaldo N. ; Beaulieu, Marie Dominique ; Elford, R. Wayne ; Feldman, William ; Logan, Alexander G. ; Morrison, Brenda ; Offord, David R. ; Patterson, Christopher ; Spitzer, Walter O. ; Mickelson, Phillip ; Dingle, Jennifer. / Periodic health examination, 1996 update : 2. Screening for chlamydial infections. In: CMAJ. 1996 ; Vol. 154, No. 11. pp. 1631-1644.
@article{cb53cd8ef80146d38fb21c9ce4b37769,
title = "Periodic health examination, 1996 update: 2. Screening for chlamydial infections",
abstract = "Objective: To update the 1984 recommendations of the Canadian Task Force on the Periodic Health Examination on the routine screening of asymptomatic patients for infection with Chlamydia trachomatis. Options: Screening, with the use of culture or nonculture tests, of the general population, of certain high-risk groups or of all pregnant women; or no routine screening. Outcomes: Rates of asymptomatic and symptomatic chlamydial infection, perinatal complications, long-term complications of infection (i.e., pelvic inflammatory disease, infertility and ectopic pregnancy), coinfection with other sexually transmitted diseases, disease spread, hospital care, complications of therapy and costs of infection and of screening. Evidence: Search of MEDLINE For articles published between Jan. 1, 1983, and Dec. 31, 1995, with the use of the major MeSH heading 'chlamydial infections,' references from recent review articles and recommendations by other organizations. Values: The evidence-based methods of the Canadian Task Force on the Periodic Health Examination were used. Advice from reviewers and experts and recommendations of other organizations were taken into consideration. Prevention of symptomatic disease and decreased overall costs were given high values. Benefits, harms and costs: The greatest potential benefits of screening asymptomatic patients for chlamydial infections are the prevention of: complications, especially infertility and perinatal complications, and the prevention of disease spread. There is no evidence that screening of the general population for chlamydial infections leads to a reduction in complications, and screening may increase costs. However, there is evidence that annual screening of selected high-risk groups and of pregnant women during the first trimester is beneficial in preventing symptoms and reducing the overall cost resulting from infection. Recommendations: There is fair evidence to support screening and treatment of pregnant women during the first trimester (grade B recommendation); as well as annual screening and treatment of high-risk groups (sexually active women less than 25 years of age, men or women with new or multiple sexual partners during the preceding year, women who use nonbarrier contraceptive methods and women who have symptoms of chlamydial infection: cervical friability, mucopurulent cervical discharge or intermenstrual bleeding; grade B recommendation). There is fair evidence to exclude routine screening of the general population (grade D recommendation). Validation: These recommendations are similar to those of the US Preventive Services Task Force and the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta. Sponsor: These guidelines were developed and endorsed by the Canadian Task Force on the Periodic Health Examination, which is funded by Health Canada and the National Health Research and Development Program. The principal author (H.D.D.) was supported in part by the Ontario Ministry of Health and the Canadian Infectious Diseases Society Lilly Fellowship.",
author = "Davies, {H. Dele} and Wang, {Elaine E.L.} and Feightner, {John W.} and Richard Goldbloom and Geoffrey Anderson and Battista, {Renaldo N.} and Beaulieu, {Marie Dominique} and Elford, {R. Wayne} and William Feldman and Logan, {Alexander G.} and Brenda Morrison and Offord, {David R.} and Christopher Patterson and Spitzer, {Walter O.} and Phillip Mickelson and Jennifer Dingle",
year = "1996",
month = "6",
day = "25",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "154",
pages = "1631--1644",
journal = "Canadian Medical Association Journal",
issn = "0008-4409",
publisher = "Canadian Medical Association",
number = "11",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Periodic health examination, 1996 update

T2 - 2. Screening for chlamydial infections

AU - Davies, H. Dele

AU - Wang, Elaine E.L.

AU - Feightner, John W.

AU - Goldbloom, Richard

AU - Anderson, Geoffrey

AU - Battista, Renaldo N.

AU - Beaulieu, Marie Dominique

AU - Elford, R. Wayne

AU - Feldman, William

AU - Logan, Alexander G.

AU - Morrison, Brenda

AU - Offord, David R.

AU - Patterson, Christopher

AU - Spitzer, Walter O.

AU - Mickelson, Phillip

AU - Dingle, Jennifer

PY - 1996/6/25

Y1 - 1996/6/25

N2 - Objective: To update the 1984 recommendations of the Canadian Task Force on the Periodic Health Examination on the routine screening of asymptomatic patients for infection with Chlamydia trachomatis. Options: Screening, with the use of culture or nonculture tests, of the general population, of certain high-risk groups or of all pregnant women; or no routine screening. Outcomes: Rates of asymptomatic and symptomatic chlamydial infection, perinatal complications, long-term complications of infection (i.e., pelvic inflammatory disease, infertility and ectopic pregnancy), coinfection with other sexually transmitted diseases, disease spread, hospital care, complications of therapy and costs of infection and of screening. Evidence: Search of MEDLINE For articles published between Jan. 1, 1983, and Dec. 31, 1995, with the use of the major MeSH heading 'chlamydial infections,' references from recent review articles and recommendations by other organizations. Values: The evidence-based methods of the Canadian Task Force on the Periodic Health Examination were used. Advice from reviewers and experts and recommendations of other organizations were taken into consideration. Prevention of symptomatic disease and decreased overall costs were given high values. Benefits, harms and costs: The greatest potential benefits of screening asymptomatic patients for chlamydial infections are the prevention of: complications, especially infertility and perinatal complications, and the prevention of disease spread. There is no evidence that screening of the general population for chlamydial infections leads to a reduction in complications, and screening may increase costs. However, there is evidence that annual screening of selected high-risk groups and of pregnant women during the first trimester is beneficial in preventing symptoms and reducing the overall cost resulting from infection. Recommendations: There is fair evidence to support screening and treatment of pregnant women during the first trimester (grade B recommendation); as well as annual screening and treatment of high-risk groups (sexually active women less than 25 years of age, men or women with new or multiple sexual partners during the preceding year, women who use nonbarrier contraceptive methods and women who have symptoms of chlamydial infection: cervical friability, mucopurulent cervical discharge or intermenstrual bleeding; grade B recommendation). There is fair evidence to exclude routine screening of the general population (grade D recommendation). Validation: These recommendations are similar to those of the US Preventive Services Task Force and the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta. Sponsor: These guidelines were developed and endorsed by the Canadian Task Force on the Periodic Health Examination, which is funded by Health Canada and the National Health Research and Development Program. The principal author (H.D.D.) was supported in part by the Ontario Ministry of Health and the Canadian Infectious Diseases Society Lilly Fellowship.

AB - Objective: To update the 1984 recommendations of the Canadian Task Force on the Periodic Health Examination on the routine screening of asymptomatic patients for infection with Chlamydia trachomatis. Options: Screening, with the use of culture or nonculture tests, of the general population, of certain high-risk groups or of all pregnant women; or no routine screening. Outcomes: Rates of asymptomatic and symptomatic chlamydial infection, perinatal complications, long-term complications of infection (i.e., pelvic inflammatory disease, infertility and ectopic pregnancy), coinfection with other sexually transmitted diseases, disease spread, hospital care, complications of therapy and costs of infection and of screening. Evidence: Search of MEDLINE For articles published between Jan. 1, 1983, and Dec. 31, 1995, with the use of the major MeSH heading 'chlamydial infections,' references from recent review articles and recommendations by other organizations. Values: The evidence-based methods of the Canadian Task Force on the Periodic Health Examination were used. Advice from reviewers and experts and recommendations of other organizations were taken into consideration. Prevention of symptomatic disease and decreased overall costs were given high values. Benefits, harms and costs: The greatest potential benefits of screening asymptomatic patients for chlamydial infections are the prevention of: complications, especially infertility and perinatal complications, and the prevention of disease spread. There is no evidence that screening of the general population for chlamydial infections leads to a reduction in complications, and screening may increase costs. However, there is evidence that annual screening of selected high-risk groups and of pregnant women during the first trimester is beneficial in preventing symptoms and reducing the overall cost resulting from infection. Recommendations: There is fair evidence to support screening and treatment of pregnant women during the first trimester (grade B recommendation); as well as annual screening and treatment of high-risk groups (sexually active women less than 25 years of age, men or women with new or multiple sexual partners during the preceding year, women who use nonbarrier contraceptive methods and women who have symptoms of chlamydial infection: cervical friability, mucopurulent cervical discharge or intermenstrual bleeding; grade B recommendation). There is fair evidence to exclude routine screening of the general population (grade D recommendation). Validation: These recommendations are similar to those of the US Preventive Services Task Force and the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta. Sponsor: These guidelines were developed and endorsed by the Canadian Task Force on the Periodic Health Examination, which is funded by Health Canada and the National Health Research and Development Program. The principal author (H.D.D.) was supported in part by the Ontario Ministry of Health and the Canadian Infectious Diseases Society Lilly Fellowship.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0010689019&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0010689019&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Review article

C2 - 8646651

AN - SCOPUS:0010689019

VL - 154

SP - 1631

EP - 1644

JO - Canadian Medical Association Journal

JF - Canadian Medical Association Journal

SN - 0008-4409

IS - 11

ER -