Lessons learned from a population-based chlamydia screening pilot

No abstract is available for this paper.

• Publication year

  2006

• Venue

  International Journal of STD and AIDS

• Publication date

  2006-12-01

• Fields of study

  Medicine

• Identifiers
  DOI 10.1258/095646206779307577PMID 17212860
• External record

  Open on Semantic Scholar

• Source metadata

  Semantic Scholar, PubMed

• No claims are published for this paper.

• No concepts are published for this paper.

• Coverage and uptake of systematic postal screening for genital Chlamydia trachomatis and prevalence of infection in the United Kingdom general population: cross sectional study

  2005cited by this paper
• Management of Chlamydia Cases and Their Partners: Results From a Home-Based Screening Program Organized by Municipal Public Health Services With Referral to Regular Health Care

  2005cited by this paper
• Prevalence of urogenital Chlamydia trachomatis increases significantly with level of urbanisation and suggests targeted screening approaches: results from the first national population based study in the Netherlands

  2005cited by this paper
• Acceptability and Consequences of Screening for Chlamydia trachomatis by Home-Based Urine Testing

  2005cited by this paper
• A prediction rule for selective screening of Chlamydia trachomatis infection

  2005cited by this paper
• The chlamydia screening studies: rationale and design

  2004cited by this paper
• Testing for Chlamydial and Gonorrheal Infections Outside of Clinic Settings: A Summary of the Literature

  2004cited by this paper
• Establishing the National Chlamydia Screening Programme in England: results from the first full year of screening

  2004cited by this paper
• Chlamydial infection: an accurate model for opportunistic screening in general practice

  2003cited by this paper
• Opportunistic screening for genital chlamydial infection. I: Acceptability of urine testing in primary and secondary healthcare settings

  2003cited by this paper
• The internet, a simple and convenient tool in Chlamydia trachomatis screening of young people.

  2003cited by this paper
• Opportunistic screening for genital chlamydial infection. II: Prevalence among healthcare attenders, outcome, and evaluation of positive cases

  2003cited by this paper
• Population-based strategies for outreach screening of urogenital Chlamydia trachomatis infections: a randomized, controlled trial.

  2002cited by this paper
• Screening men for Chlamydia trachomatis infection: have we fully explored the possibilities?

  2000cited by this paper
• [Opportunistic screening for genital infections with Chlamydia trachomatis among the sexually active population of Amsterdam. Il Over 90% participation and almost 5% prevalence].

  1999cited by this paper
• [Systematic home screening for Chlamydia trachomatis infections of asymptomatic men and women in family practice by means of mail-in urine samples].

  1999cited by this paper
• Mailed, Home-Obtained Urine Specimens: a Reliable Screening Approach for Detecting Asymptomatic Chlamydia trachomatis Infections

  1999cited by this paper
• Efficacy of home sampling for screening of Chlamydia trachomatis: randomised study

  1998cited by this paper
• Diagnosis of urogenital Chlamydia trachomatis infection in women based on mailed samples obtained at home: multipractice comparative study

  1996cited by this paper
• Decreasing Incidences of Gonorrhea‐ and Chlamydia‐Associated Acute Pelvic Inflammatory Disease: A 25‐Year Study From an Urban Area of Central Sweden

  1996cited by this paper
• The impact of a comprehensive chlamydia prevention program in Wisconsin.

  1995cited by this paper

• Home-based versus clinic-based specimen collection in the management of Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhoeae infections.

  2015cites this paper
• Home‐based versus clinic‐based management strategy for Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhoeae

  2014cites this paper
• Chlamydia control in Europe: literature review

  2014cites this paper
• Use of the UriSwab collection device for testing of Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhoeae: implications for a postal testing service

  2013cites this paper
• Systematic screening with information and home sampling for genital Chlamydia trachomatis infections in young men and women in Norway: a randomized controlled trial

  2013cites this paper
• Home-based chlamydia and gonorrhoea screening: a systematic review of strategies and outcomes

  2013cites this paper
• Influence of Temperature, Medium, and Storage Duration on Chlamydia trachomatis DNA Detection by PCR

  2012cites this paper
• Keeping participants on board: increasing uptake by automated respondent reminders in an Internet-based Chlamydia Screening in the Netherlands

  2012cites this paper
• Home versus clinic-based specimen collection for Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhoeae

  2011cites this paper
• Screening for sexually transmitted infections at home or in the clinic?

  2011cites this paper
• Novel approaches to non-clinic-based Chlamydia trachomatis testing

  2011cites this paper
• Cultural tailoring for the promotion of Hepatitis B screening in Turkish Dutch: a protocol for a randomized controlled trial

  2010cites this paper
• Overcoming the barriers to chlamydia screening in general practice--a qualitative study.

  2010cites this paper
• Chlamydia urine for PCR detection of and ambient temperature postal transport of A novel gel-based method for self-collection

  2009cites this paper
• An integrated approach to Chlamydia trachomatis infection: the ICTI Consortium, an update.

  2009cites this paper
• Secondary Prevention of Hepatitis B in the Netherlands

  2009cites this paper
• A novel gel-based method for self-collection and ambient temperature postal transport of urine for PCR detection of Chlamydia trachomatis

  2008cites this paper
• Risk selection and targeted interventions in community-based control of chlamydia

  2007cites this paper
• The Cost-Effectiveness of Screening for Genital Chlamydial Infection in the UK

  2007cites this paper
• Screening for Chlamydia trachomatis: whom and how?

  2006cites this paper