4.1 Article

How Much Tubal Factor Infertility Is Caused by Chlamydia? Estimates Based on Serological Evidence Corrected for Sensitivity and Specificity

Journal

SEXUALLY TRANSMITTED DISEASES
Volume 39, Issue 8, Pages 608-613

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/OLQ.0b013e3182572475

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. UK Medical Research Council [G0801947]
  2. Economic and Social Research Council [ES/J002909/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  3. Medical Research Council [G0802413, G0801947] Funding Source: researchfish
  4. National Institute for Health Research [PDF-2009-02-55] Funding Source: researchfish
  5. ESRC [ES/J002909/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  6. MRC [G0802413, G0801947] Funding Source: UKRI

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives: To estimate the proportion of tubal factor infertility (TFI) caused by Chlamydia trachomatis (CT), the etiologic fraction, from a retrospective study of CT antibody prevalence in TFI cases and controls, adjusted for sensitivity and specificity. Methods: We use published data on sensitivity and specificity to estimate the performance of assays in (a) women with a previous CT infection without sequelae and (b) women with TFI caused by CT. A model was developed and applied to antibody prevalence in TFI cases and controls from 1 published case-control study to estimate the proportion of TFI caused by CT. Results: The proportion of TFI episodes that were due to CT infection was estimated to be 45% (credible intervals: 28%, 62%). Models which assume that test sensitivity is higher in women with CT-related TFI than women with previous infection and no sequelae fit the data significantly better than models that assume the same sensitivity in all those previously infected. Conclusions: Greater attention needs to be paid to methods for characterizing the performance of CT antibody tests. Serological studies could be given a greater role both in CT etiology and in monitoring the effects of prevention and control programmes.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available