AJPH
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 80, Issue 5 545-550, Copyright © 1990 by American Public Health Association

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Purchase Article
Right arrow View Shopping Cart
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Related articles in AJPH
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Randolph, A G
Right arrow Articles by Washington, A E
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Randolph, A G
Right arrow Articles by Washington, A E
Screening for Chlamydia trachomatis in adolescent males: a cost-based decision analysis.

A G Randolph and A E Washington

Medical Scholars Program, Stanford University School of Medicine, San Francisco, CA.

To evaluate the cost and benefits of screening tests for Chlamydia trachomatis in adolescent males, we developed a decision analysis model and compared the leukocyte esterase urine dipstick test with culture, with direct-smear fluorescent antibody (DFA), and with the option of no screening (no treatment). The leukocyte esterase test has the lowest average cost-per-cure ($51) compared with direct-smear fluorescent antibody ($192) and culture ($414). Compared with the DFA, we estimate that the leukocyte esterase test saves over $9,727 per cohort of 1,000 sexually active adolescent males screened. Sensitivity analyses show the leukocyte esterase test results in a lower cost-per-cure and lower overall costs (per cohort) than culture and direct-smear fluorescent antibody at any prevalence of C. trachomatis infection, and lower overall costs (per cohort) than no screening at prevalences above 21 percent.


Related articles in AJPH:

Is it cost-beneficial to screen adolescent males for chlamydia?
E R Alexander
AJPH 1990 80: 531-532. [PDF]  



This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Sex. Transm. Infect.Home page
T E Roberts, S Robinson, P Barton, S Bryan, N Low, and for the Chlamydia Screening Studies (ClaSS) Group
Screening for Chlamydia trachomatis: a systematic review of the economic evaluations and modelling.
Sex. Transm. Inf., June 1, 2006; 82(3): 193 - 200.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Obstet GynecolHome page
K. T. Bernstein, S. D. Mehta, A. M. Rompalo, and E. J. Erbelding
Cost-Effectiveness of Screening Strategies for Gonorrhea Among Females in Private Sector Care.
Obstet. Gynecol., April 1, 2006; 107(4): 813 - 821.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Scand J Public HealthHome page
D. P. Novak, L. Lindholm, M. Jonsson, and R. B. Karlsson
A Swedish cost-effectiveness analysis of community-based Chlamydia trachomatis PCR testing of postal urine specimens obtained at home
Scand J Public Health, October 1, 2004; 32(5): 324 - 332.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Sex. Transm. Infect.Home page
J Debattista, P Martin, J Jamieson, K Crane, I Dolton, S Russell-Hall, J DeSilva, R Hargrave, T Robinson, N Ryan, et al.
Detection of Chlamydia trachomatis in an Australian high school student population
Sex. Transm. Inf., June 1, 2002; 78(3): 194 - 197.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1990 by the American Public Health Association