Comparing the prevalence of chlamydial infection across populations--what is appropriate?
Comparing the prevalence of chlamydial infection across populations--what is appropriate?
复制标题
比较人群中衣原体感染的患病率——什么是合适的?
DOI:
10.1097/olq.0b013e318204e76d
复制
发表时间:
2011
影响因子:
3.1
通讯作者:
Cholera,Rushina
中科院分区:
文献类型:
--
作者:
Miller,WilliamC;Cholera,Rushina
For the past 25 years, we, the sexually transmitted disease (STD) research community, have been attempting to estimate the prevalence of chlamydial infection in a variety of settings and populations. Many early efforts were clinic-based, typically involving high-risk women. 1, 2 Subsequent efforts have involved selected populations, such as adolescents in school-based programs, college students, and military personnel. 3–6 The application of population-based survey methodology to the estimation of chlamydial infection prevalence, both nationally and in local areas such as Baltimore, have yielded insights into the burden of the infection in the general population. 7–9 Recently, prevalence estimation has evolved to include populations recruited in new and interesting ways, such as the internet. 10In this issue of Sexually Transmitted Diseases, Gaydos et al. examine the prevalence of chlamydial infection in a sample of young women who chose to seek testing for Chlamydia through an internet-based program. 11 This program was described previously. 10 The primary purpose of the current study was to compare the prevalence of infection among the women seeking testing over the internet with women who underwent testing as a part of the Infertility Prevention Program (IPP) in Region III, which includes the State of Maryland where the internet-based program was conducted. In Region III, women 30 years of age are routinely screened for chlamydial infection in family planning clinics, STD clinics, and some additional clinics affiliated with the program. The authors focused on the family planning component of the IPP because they wanted to show that “internetbased screening could provide another tool in our ‘tool box’to increase screening and perhaps demonstrate a higher positivity in a ‘screening’population than a family planning screening population.”
登录
查看更多内容
影响因子:
56.9
作者:
MCCLARIN, JA;FREDERICK, CA;ROSENBERG, JM
通讯作者:
ROSENBERG, JM
影响因子:
4.8
作者:
R. Gronostajski;P. Sadowski
通讯作者:
P. Sadowski
影响因子:
5.3
作者:
M. Jayaram;A. Sutton;J. Broach
通讯作者:
J. Broach
影响因子:
5.6
作者:
B. Andrews;L. Beatty;P. Sadowski
通讯作者:
P. Sadowski
影响因子:
5.3
作者:
Prasad,PV;Horensky,D;Young,LJ;Jayaram,M
通讯作者:
Jayaram,M