Sexually transmitted diseases · 2003
The clinical and economic consequences of screening young men for genital chlamydial infection.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАПоддержка правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Ginocchio Rachel H S, Veenstra David L, Connell Frederick A, Marrazzo Jeanne M
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Wide-scale application of urine-based screening of asymptomatic men for chlamydial infection has not been thoroughly assessed.
GOAL: The goal was to compare clinical and economic consequences of three strategies: (1). no screening, (2). screening with ligase chain reaction (LCR) assay of urine, and (3). prescreening urine with a leukocyte esterase test (LE) and confirming positives with LCR.
STUDY DESIGN: We used a decision analytic model.
RESULTS: At a chlamydia prevalence of 5%, the no screening cost was US dollars 7.44 per man screened, resulting in 522 cases of pelvic inflammatory disease (PID) per 100000 men. LE-LCR was most cost-effective, preventing 242 cases of PID over no screening at an additional cost of US dollars 29.14 per male screened. The LCR strategy prevented 104 more cases of PID than LE-LCR but cost US dollars 22.62 more per male screened. For this to be more efficient than LE-LCR, the LCR assay cost needed to decline to <or=US dollars 18.
CONCLUSION: At a chlamydia prevalence of 5%, LE-LCR is the most efficient use of resources. If LCR cost decreases or chlamydia prevalence increases, the LCR strategy is favored.
GOAL: The goal was to compare clinical and economic consequences of three strategies: (1). no screening, (2). screening with ligase chain reaction (LCR) assay of urine, and (3). prescreening urine with a leukocyte esterase test (LE) and confirming positives with LCR.
STUDY DESIGN: We used a decision analytic model.
RESULTS: At a chlamydia prevalence of 5%, the no screening cost was US dollars 7.44 per man screened, resulting in 522 cases of pelvic inflammatory disease (PID) per 100000 men. LE-LCR was most cost-effective, preventing 242 cases of PID over no screening at an additional cost of US dollars 29.14 per male screened. The LCR strategy prevented 104 more cases of PID than LE-LCR but cost US dollars 22.62 more per male screened. For this to be more efficient than LE-LCR, the LCR assay cost needed to decline to <or=US dollars 18.
CONCLUSION: At a chlamydia prevalence of 5%, LE-LCR is the most efficient use of resources. If LCR cost decreases or chlamydia prevalence increases, the LCR strategy is favored.