Sexually transmitted diseases · 2002
A cost-effectiveness evaluation of testing and treatment of Chlamydia trachomatis infection among asymptomatic women infected with Neisseria gonorrhoeae.
СтатьяНазвание 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.
Gift Thomas, Walsh Cathleen, Haddix Anne, Irwin Kathleen L
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Because patients infected with Neisseria gonorrhoeae are frequently coinfected with Chlamydia trachomatis, routine dual treatment of patients with N gonorrhoeae infection is frequently practiced and has long been recommended.
GOAL: The goal of this study was to examine the cost-effectiveness of routine dual treatment of women with infection, with or without separate testing for C trachomatis, compared with an alternative of testing for both infections and restricting treatment for C trachomatis to women testing positive for C trachomatis.
STUDY DESIGN: A decision analysis compared the cost-effectiveness of these options using cases of pelvic inflammatory disease prevented as the outcome. Parameter values were taken from the literature.
RESULTS: Routine dual treatment is not an effective or cost-effective replacement for testing for C trachomatis, but it can increase the number of cases of C trachomatis treated when combined with testing. Dual treatment results in more overtreatment of infection C trachomatis than treatment based on test results.
CONCLUSIONS: Testing for both infections is more cost-effective than routine presumptive treatment for C trachomatis. Providing both presumptive treatment and testing for C trachomatis can also be cost-effective in some settings.
GOAL: The goal of this study was to examine the cost-effectiveness of routine dual treatment of women with infection, with or without separate testing for C trachomatis, compared with an alternative of testing for both infections and restricting treatment for C trachomatis to women testing positive for C trachomatis.
STUDY DESIGN: A decision analysis compared the cost-effectiveness of these options using cases of pelvic inflammatory disease prevented as the outcome. Parameter values were taken from the literature.
RESULTS: Routine dual treatment is not an effective or cost-effective replacement for testing for C trachomatis, but it can increase the number of cases of C trachomatis treated when combined with testing. Dual treatment results in more overtreatment of infection C trachomatis than treatment based on test results.
CONCLUSIONS: Testing for both infections is more cost-effective than routine presumptive treatment for C trachomatis. Providing both presumptive treatment and testing for C trachomatis can also be cost-effective in some settings.