Screening for Chlamydia trachomatis

BMJ 1998;317:680 ( 5 September )

Letters

Screening for Chlamydia trachomatis

New methods are needed to assess the burden of illness from chlamydia

Genitourinary medicine clinics in Scotland give high priority to contact tracing

Contacts attendance rate is 70% in Hertfordshire

New technologies enable screening to be carried out in schools and the community

Screening for and treatment of chlamydial infection demand commitment

New methods are needed to assess the burden of illness from chlamydia

The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below.

EDITOR $---$ Boag and Kelly's editorial is a useful review of some of the issues raised in the recently published summary of thefindings of the chief medical officer's expert advisory groupon genital chlamydial infection.¹ If successfully implemented,these recommendations would be one of the most important publichealth interventions in controlling communicable diseases of thepast 25 years. However, they do not address the issue of how theproposed screening programme might beevaluated.

Boag and Kelly imply that successful intervention would reduce the incidence of infertility. Although this may be true, monitoringrates of infertility is unlikely to provide a reliable or timelymeasure of the true impact of intervention. Firstly, genital chlamydialinfection is associated with only about 75% of cases of tubalfactor infertility, which in turn is thought to account for only36% of all cases of infertility. ² ³ Secondly, the highestprevalence of genital chlamydial . . . [Full text of this article]