Use of laboratory testing for genital chlamydial infection in Norway.
Open Access
- 1 June 1993
- journal article
- research article
- Published by BMJ in Quality and Safety in Health Care
- Vol. 2 (2), 91-95
- https://doi.org/10.1136/qshc.2.2.91
Abstract
OBJECTIVE--To assess the use of laboratory tests for genital chlamydial infection in Norway. DESIGN--Questionnaire survey of general practitioners' practice in chlamydial testing, retrospective survey of laboratory records, 1986-91, and prospective study of testing in one laboratory during four weeks. SETTING--All 18 microbiological laboratories in Norway (4.2 million population), including one serving all doctors in Vestfold county (0.2 million population). SUBJECTS--302 general practitioners. MAIN MEASURES--GPs' routine practice, methods used for testing, 1986-91, and sex specific and age group specific testing in 1991. RESULTS--201(69%) GPs replied to the questionnaire: 101(51%) would test all women younger than 25 years at routine pelvic examination, 107(54%) all girls at first pelvic examination, 131(66%) all pregnant women, and 106(54%) all men whose female partner had urogenital complaints. Nationwide in 1986, 122,000 tests were performed (2.9 per 100 population); 10% were positive and 51% were cell culture tests. In 1991, 341,000 tests were performed (8.0 per 100 population); 4.5% were positive and 15% were cell culture tests. 13,184 tests were performed in Vestfold in 1991 (6.6 per 100 population). The age group specific rates (per 100 population) among women were: age 15-19 years, 22.0(95% confidence interval 18.2 to 25.8); 20-24 years, 47.2(42.1 to 52.3); 25-29 years, 42.3(37.1 to 47.5); 30-34 years, 29.8(25.4 to 34.2); and 35-39 years, 12.5(9.5 to 15.5). CONCLUSIONS--GPs use liberal indications for testing. The dramatic increase in testing, especially by enzyme immunoassays, in populations with a low prevalence of infection results in low cost effectiveness and low predictive value of positive tests, which in women over 29 years is estimated as 17-36%. IMPLICATIONS--Doctors should be educated about the limitations of enzyme immunoassays in screening low prevalence populations, and laboratories should apply a confirmatory test to specimens testing positive with such assays.Keywords
This publication has 15 references indexed in Scilit:
- Screening, ethics, and the law.BMJ, 1992
- Chlamydiazyme Plus Blocking Assay to Detect Chlamydia trachomatis in Endocervical SpecimensAmerican Journal of Clinical Pathology, 1992
- Survey of the treatment ofChlamydia trachomatisinfection of the female genital tractActa Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica, 1992
- Laboratory techniques for the diagnosis of chlamydial infections.Sexually Transmitted Infections, 1991
- Genital chlamydial infections: Epidemiology and reproductive sequelaeAmerican Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 1991
- Epidemiologic differences between chlamydia and gonorrhea.American Journal of Public Health, 1990
- Cost Effectiveness of Testing for Chlamydial Infections in Asymptomatic WomenMedical Care, 1989
- Early Detection of Genital Chlamydial Infection in WomenSexually Transmitted Diseases, 1989
- Role of the virology laboratory in diagnosis and management of patients with central nervous system diseaseClinical Microbiology Reviews, 1989
- Should Tests forChlamydia trachomatisCervical Infection Be Done During Routine Gynecologic Visits?Annals of Internal Medicine, 1987