Skip to main content

Table 2 Summary of findings on benefit outcomes for screening versus no screening (key question 1)

From: Screening for chlamydia and/or gonorrhea in primary health care: systematic reviews on effectiveness and patient preferences

Outcome

Study approach

Assumed population riska

Studies; sample sizeb

Follow-up (yrs)

Absolute effects

Certaintyc

What happens?

PID

MID 2.5 fewer or more per 1000

Offer of universal CT screening, annually for 1–3 years

Study data

2 RCTs; 141,362 [8, 59]

1–3

0.1 more in 1000 (2.1 fewer to 1.5 more)

Low to moderate

Little-to-no difference

General

0.3 more in 1000 (7.6 fewer to 11 more)

Very low

Little-to-no difference

High

0.5 more in 1000 (13.1 fewer to 18.7 more)

Very low

Little-to-no difference

Offer of 1 universal CT screen—selected population

Study data

1 RCT; 2607 [108]

1

11.8 fewer per 1000 (2.3 to 16.3 fewer)

Low to moderate

Small reduction

General

15.4 fewer per 1000 (3 to 21.3 fewer)

Low to moderate

Small reduction

High

26.8 fewer per 1000 (5.2 to 37.1 fewer)

Low

Moderate reduction

Acceptors of 1 universal CT screen

Study data

2 RCTs [28, 105], 1 CCT [88]; 30,652

1

3.7 fewer per 1000 (7.1 fewer to 0.7 more)

Low

Small reduction

General

5.7 fewer per 1000 (10.8 fewer to 1.1 more)

Low

Small reduction

High

9.9 fewer per 1000 (18.8 fewer to 1.9 more)

Very low to low

Moderate reduction

Ectopic pregnancy

MID 1 fewer or more per 1000

Offer of 1 universal CT screen

General

1 RCT; 15,459 [59]

9

0.20 more per 1000 (2.2 fewer to 3.9 more)

Very low

Little-to-no difference

Acceptors of 1 universal CT screen

High

1 CCT; 28,074 [88]

1.5

0.63 more per 1000 (0.76 fewer to 2.8 more)

Very low

Little-to-no difference

Infertility—female

MID 1 fewer or more per 1000

Offer of 1 universal CT screen

General

1 RCT; 15,459 [59]

9

4.2 more per 1000 (1.7 fewer to 11.2 more)

Very low

Very uncertain

Acceptors of 1 universal CT screen

High

1 CCT; 28,074 [88]

1.5

0.15 fewer per 1000 (0.37 fewer to 0.88 more)

Very low

Very uncertain

Transmission of CT—prevalence

MID 5 and 10 fewer or more per 1000

Offer of universal CT screening—annually for 1–3 years

General—both sexes

3 cluster RCTs; 41,709 [8, 9, 12]

1–3

3 fewer per 1000 (11.5 fewer to 6.9 more)

Low (5 fewer per 1000)

Low to moderate (10 fewer per 1000)

Little to no difference

General— females

2 cluster RCTs; 27,300 [8, 9]

2–3

4.1 fewer (13.5 fewer to 9.75 more)

Very low to low (5 fewer per 1000)

Low (10 fewer per 1000)

Little-to-no difference

General— males

2 cluster RCTs; 11,749 [8, 9]

2-3

7.2 fewer (18.9 fewer to 8.6 more)

Very low (5 fewer per 1000)

Very low to low (10 fewer per 1000)

Very uncertain

Offer of universal CT and NG screening—frequent screening over 2.5–4 years

High—both sexes

1 cluster CCT; 3803 [89]

2.5

26 fewer cases in 1000 (65 fewer to 68 more)

Very low (both thresholds)

Very uncertain

High—females

1 RCT [60]; 1 CCT [89]; 6127

2.5–4

34.3 fewer per 1000 (4 to 58 fewer); NNS 29 (17 to 250)

Low to moderate (both thresholds)

Moderate reduction

High—males

1 CCT; 1830 [89]

2.5

31 fewer per 1000 (55 fewer to 52 more)

Very low (both thresholds)

Very uncertain

Transmission of NG—prevalence

MID 5 and 10 fewer or more per 1000

Offer of universal CT and NG screening—frequent screening over 2.5–4 years

High—both sexes

1 CCT; 3765 [89]

2.5

3 fewer in 1000 (5 fewer to 87 more)

Very low

Very uncertain

High—females

1 RCT [60], 1 CCT [89]; 6000

2.5–4

5–7 fewer per 1000

Very low to low

Moderate reduction

High—males

1 CCT; 1826 [89]

2.5

0.4 fewer in 1000 (10 fewer to 117 more)

Very low

Very uncertain

  1. Abbreviations: CCT controlled clinical trial, CT Chlamydia trachomatis, MID minimally important difference threshold, NG Neisseria gonorrhoeae, NNS number needed to screen, RCT randomized controlled trial, RR relative risks
  2. a For PID, the absolute effects and certainty assessment the in Study Data rows used the control event rates from the studies, applying the median value when more than one study contributed to the analysis. The general-risk and high-risk assumed population risk estimates were calculated using the relative effects (RR) from the studies together with an estimate of the risk without screening, based on the natural history parameters of CT (see Additional files 3 and 6). The studies reporting on PID enrolled samples considered to be at general risk. For the other outcomes, the (median) control event rate of the studies was used for the calculations, but the level of risk of the study population (general risk ≤7% vs. high risk >7% CT prevalence at baseline) is indicated
  3. b Sample sizes for the outcome of transmission are for those participants who had this outcome assessed (e.g., through surveys), not the number enrolled in the trials. All findings from observational studies are described in Additional file 6 and provided very low certainty evidence
  4. c Reasons for ratings are explained in Additional file 6