Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Genital Chlamydia Prevalence in Europe and Non-European High Income Countries: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Show others and affiliations
2015 (English)In: PLoS ONE, ISSN 1932-6203, E-ISSN 1932-6203, Vol. 10, no 1, article id UNSP e0115753Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Background Accurate information about the prevalence of Chlamydia trachomatis is needed to assess national prevention and control measures. Methods We systematically reviewed population-based cross-sectional studies that estimated chlamydia prevalence in European Union/European Economic Area (EU/EEA) Member States and non-European high income countries from January 1990 to August 2012. We examined results in forest plots, explored heterogeneity using the I-2 statistic, and conducted random effects meta-analysis if appropriate. Meta-regression was used to examine the relationship between study characteristics and chlamydia prevalence estimates. Results We included 25 population-based studies from 11 EU/EEA countries and 14 studies from five other high income countries. Four EU/ EEAMember States reported on nationally representative surveys of sexually experienced adults aged 18-26 years (response rates 52-71%). In women, chlamydia point prevalence estimates ranged from 3.0-5.3%; the pooled average of these estimates was 3.6%(95% CI 2.4, 4.8, I-2 0%). In men, estimates ranged from 2.4-7.3% (pooled average 3.5%; 95% CI 1.9, 5.2, I-2 27%). Estimates in EU/EEA Member States were statistically consistent with those in other high income countries (I-2 0% for women, 6% for men). There was statistical evidence of an association between survey response rate and estimated chlamydia prevalence; estimates were higher in surveys with lower response rates, (p = 0.003 in women, 0.018 in men). Conclusions Population-based surveys that estimate chlamydia prevalence are at risk of participation bias owing to low response rates. Estimates obtained in nationally representative samples of the general population of EU/EEA Member States are similar to estimates from other high income countries.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2015. Vol. 10, no 1, article id UNSP e0115753
National Category
Infectious Medicine
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:uu:diva-302435DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0115753ISI: 000349122100016PubMedID: 25615574OAI: oai:DiVA.org:uu-302435DiVA: diva2:957554
Available from: 2016-09-02 Created: 2016-09-02 Last updated: 2017-11-21Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

fulltext(731 kB)62 downloads
File information
File name FULLTEXT01.pdfFile size 731 kBChecksum SHA-512
ba192683a882c8e70aa33bf20c379246a5b574f16c421d9546fa2e62368c3c36a75baf12814fc5bd5956678facc5c74203c5e05209d23a6ced5ac0339a88a45a
Type fulltextMimetype application/pdf

Other links

Publisher's full textPubMed

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Ward, HelenHerrmann, BjörnLow, Nicola
By organisation
Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Medicine
In the same journal
PLoS ONE
Infectious Medicine

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar
Total: 62 downloads
The number of downloads is the sum of all downloads of full texts. It may include eg previous versions that are now no longer available

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn
Total: 289 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf