Loading…
Screening for asymptomatic urogenital Chlamydia trachomatis infection at a large Dublin maternity hospital: results of a pilot study
Background There are currently no Irish guidelines on screening for Chlamydia trachomatis infection in pregnancy. Prevalence rates in the antenatal population are not known which has prevented the development of screening recommendations for this group. Aims The objective of this study was to determ...
Saved in:
Published in: | Irish journal of medical science 2017-05, Vol.186 (2), p.393-397 |
---|---|
Main Authors: | , , , , , , , |
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Subjects: | |
Citations: | Items that this one cites Items that cite this one |
Online Access: | Get full text |
Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
Summary: | Background
There are currently no Irish guidelines on screening for
Chlamydia trachomatis
infection in pregnancy. Prevalence rates in the antenatal population are not known which has prevented the development of screening recommendations for this group.
Aims
The objective of this study was to determine the prevalence of asymptomatic urogenital
C. trachomatis
infection in young women attending for care at a large maternity hospital.
Methods
All patients aged 25 years and under attending the Hospital between December 2011 and December 2013 were offered screening for urogenital
C. trachomatis
infection. Nucleic acid amplification testing of the
C. trachomatis
cryptic plasmid was performed on either endocervical swabs or first void urine samples.
Results
There were 2687 women tested for
C. trachomatis
infection, 83.4 % (2241/2687) through the antenatal clinics, 7.1 % (193/2687) through the gynaecology clinic, and 9.4 % (253/2687) through the emergency department. The rate of a positive test result was 5.6 % (151/2687) overall. The rates in women ages 16–18, 19–21 and 22–25 years were 9.1 % (31/340), 6.5 % (50/774) and 4.4 % (69/1561), respectively. A positive test result was more likely in those who were unemployed (
p
= 0.04), those who were Irish (
p
= 0.03) and those who were unmarried (
p
|
---|---|
ISSN: | 0021-1265 1863-4362 |
DOI: | 10.1007/s11845-016-1429-3 |