Widening screening to detect Chlamydia trachomatis is more important than using DNA methods

doi:10.1136/bmj.318.7195.1416

From trainee to consultant, BMJ Group offers doctors around the world tailored information, special events, learning resources and recruitment services at every step along their career path.

... by doctors, for doctors, for patients
We are open for entries!

Online learning

BMJ Learning

High-quality CME / CPD for doctors and other healthcare professionals. BMJ Learning features hundreds of accredited, peer-reviewed learning modules in text, video, and audio formats. Find out more

Courses and Qualifications

BMJ Masterclasses

BMJ Masterclasses, led by experts, help clinicians to use the latest evidence and recent guidelines in practice and meet their CPD/CME requirements. Find out more

Exam Preparation

The leading provider of online exam preparation, helping over 167,000 healthcare professionals to pass their exams. Find out more

onExamination

Search all BMJ comment articles:

From

Limit by

Access to the full text of this article requires a subscription or payment. Please log in or subscribe below.

Alan Herring, Head (A.Herring@PHLSBRISTOL.btinternet.com),
Owen Caul, Consultant virologist,
Ian Paul, Medical laboratory scientific officer,
Patrick Horner, Consultant physician

PHLS Genitourinary Infections Reference Laboratory
Bristol Public Health Laboratory, Bristol BS2 8EL
Milne Centre, Bristol Royal Infirmary, Bristol BS2 8HW

EDITOR—The letter from Taylor-Robinson and Robinson on the use of DNA amplification methods for diagnosing chlamydial infections raises several difficult issues.1 The cost of changing to such methods is substantial: we estimate that an additional £5m a year would be required for the current workload in genitourinary medicine. In addition, the substantial costs of training, additional space, and gaining formal accreditation would have to be met before the methods could be …