Screening for Chlamydial and Gonococcal Infections: Updated Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force
- PMID: 34519797
- DOI: 10.1001/jama.2021.10577
Screening for Chlamydial and Gonococcal Infections: Updated Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force
Abstract
Importance: The 2014 US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendation statement supported the effectiveness of screening for chlamydia and gonorrhea in asymptomatic, sexually active women 24 years or younger and in older women at increased risk for infection, although evidence for screening in men was insufficient.
Objective: To update the 2014 USPSTF review on screening for chlamydial and gonococcal infection in adults and adolescents, including those who are pregnant.
Data sources: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Ovid MEDLINE (January 1, 2014, through May 28, 2020) with surveillance through May 21, 2021.
Study selection: Randomized clinical trials and observational studies of screening effectiveness, accuracy of risk stratification and alternative screening methods, accuracy of tests, and screening harms.
Data extraction and synthesis: One investigator abstracted data; a second checked accuracy. Two investigators independently assessed study quality.
Main outcomes and measures: Complications of infection; infection transmission or acquisition; diagnostic accuracy of anatomical site-specific testing and collection methods; screening harms.
Results: Twenty-seven studies were included (N = 179 515). Chlamydia screening compared with no screening was significantly associated with reduced risk of pelvic inflammatory disease (PID) in 2 of 4 trials and with reduced hospital-diagnosed PID (0.24% vs 0.38%); relative risk, 0.6 [95% CI, 0.4-1.0]), but not clinic-diagnosed PID or epididymitis, in the largest trial. In studies of risk prediction instruments in asymptomatic women, age younger than 22 years demonstrated comparable accuracy to extensive criteria. Sensitivity of chlamydial testing was similar at endocervical (89%-100%) and self- and clinician-collected vaginal (90%-100%) sites for women and at meatal (100%), urethral (99%), and rectal (92%) sites for men but lower at pharyngeal sites (69.2%) for men who have sex with men. Sensitivity of gonococcal testing was 89% or greater for all anatomical samples. False-positive and false-negative testing rates were low across anatomical sites and collection methods.
Conclusions and relevance: Screening for chlamydial infection was significantly associated with a lower risk of PID in young women. Risk prediction criteria demonstrated limited accuracy beyond age. Testing for asymptomatic chlamydial and gonococcal infections was highly accurate at most anatomical sites, including urine and self-collected specimens. Effectiveness of screening in men and during pregnancy, optimal screening intervals, and adverse effects of screening require further evaluation.
Similar articles
-
Screening for Chlamydial and Gonococcal Infections: A Systematic Review Update for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force [Internet].Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2021 Sep. Report No.: 21-05275-EF-1. Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2021 Sep. Report No.: 21-05275-EF-1. PMID: 34546672 Free Books & Documents. Review.
-
Screening for Chlamydia and Gonorrhea: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement.JAMA. 2021 Sep 14;326(10):949-956. doi: 10.1001/jama.2021.14081. JAMA. 2021. PMID: 34519796
-
Screening for chlamydial infection.Am J Prev Med. 2001 Apr;20(3 Suppl):95-107. doi: 10.1016/s0749-3797(01)00253-7. Am J Prev Med. 2001. PMID: 11306238 Review.
-
Screening for Chlamydial Infection [Internet].Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2001 Apr. Report No.: 01-S003. Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2001 Apr. Report No.: 01-S003. PMID: 20722126 Free Books & Documents. Review.
-
Screening for Chlamydia and gonorrhea: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement.Ann Intern Med. 2014 Dec 16;161(12):902-10. doi: 10.7326/M14-1981. Ann Intern Med. 2014. PMID: 25243785
Cited by
-
Teledermatology in the diagnosis and treatment of sexually transmitted infections: a narrative review.Postepy Dermatol Alergol. 2024 Feb;41(1):1-8. doi: 10.5114/ada.2023.135615. Epub 2024 Feb 28. Postepy Dermatol Alergol. 2024. PMID: 38533373 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Controversies and evidence on Chlamydia testing and treatment in asymptomatic women and men who have sex with men: a narrative review.BMC Infect Dis. 2022 Mar 14;22(1):255. doi: 10.1186/s12879-022-07171-2. BMC Infect Dis. 2022. PMID: 35287617 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Prevalence of genital and extragenital sexually transmitted infections among women of reproductive age with and without HIV in the Southern US: results from the study of treatment and reproductive outcomes.Front Med (Lausanne). 2025 Mar 26;12:1537427. doi: 10.3389/fmed.2025.1537427. eCollection 2025. Front Med (Lausanne). 2025. PMID: 40206478 Free PMC article.
-
Do health professionals know about overdiagnosis in screening, and how are they dealing with it? A mixed-methods systematic scoping review.PLoS One. 2025 Feb 3;20(2):e0315247. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0315247. eCollection 2025. PLoS One. 2025. PMID: 39899650 Free PMC article.
-
Reproductive tract complication risks following Chlamydia trachomatis infections: a long-term prospective cohort study from 2008 to 2022.Lancet Reg Health Eur. 2024 Aug 17;45:101027. doi: 10.1016/j.lanepe.2024.101027. eCollection 2024 Oct. Lancet Reg Health Eur. 2024. PMID: 39247903 Free PMC article.
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical