Back to Search Start Over

Genital chlamydia prevalence in Europe and non-European high income countries: systematic review and meta-analysis

Authors :
Jan E. A. M. van Bergen
Sarah C Woodhall
Ingrid V F van den Broek
Berit Andersen
Otilia Sfetcu
Karin Alexander-Kisslig
Björn Herrmann
Hannelore M Götz
Nicola Low
Shelagh Redmond
Anneli Uusküla
Helen Ward
General practice
Source :
PLoS ONE, Vol 10, Iss 1, p e0115753 (2015), Redmond, Shelagh M; Alexander-Kisslig, Karin; Woodhall, Sarah C; van den Broek, Ingrid; van Bergen, Jan EAM; Ward, Helen; Uusküla, Anneli; Herrmann, Björn; Andersen, Berit; Götz, Hannelore M; Sfetcu, Otilia; Low, Nicola (2015). Genital chlamydia prevalence in Europe and in non-European high income countries: systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS ONE, 10(1), e0115753. Public Library of Science 10.1371/journal.pone.0115753 , Redmond, S, Woodhall, S, van den Broek, I, van Bergen, J, Ward, H, Uüskula, A, Herrmann, B, Andersen, B, Götz, H & Low, N 2015, ' Genital Chlamydia Prevalence in Europe and Non-European High Income Countries: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis ', P L o S One, vol. 10, no. 1, e0115753 . https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0115753, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0115753, PLoS ONE, PLoS ONE, 10(1). Public Library of Science
Publication Year :
2015
Publisher :
Public Library of Science (PLoS), 2015.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Accurate information about the prevalence of Chlamydia trachomatis is needed to assess national prevention and control measures. METHODS: We systematically reviewed population-based cross-sectional studies that estimated chlamydia prevalence in European Union/European Economic Area (EU/EEA) Member States and non-European high income countries from January 1990 to August 2012. We examined results in forest plots, explored heterogeneity using the I² statistic, and conducted random effects meta-analysis if appropriate. Meta-regression was used to examine the relationship between study characteristics and chlamydia prevalence estimates. RESULTS: We included 25 population-based studies from 11 EU/EEA countries and 14 studies from five other high income countries. Four EU/EEA Member States reported on nationally representative surveys of sexually experienced adults aged 18-26 years (response rates 52-71%). In women, chlamydia point prevalence estimates ranged from 3.0-5.3%; the pooled average of these estimates was 3.6% (95% CI 2.4, 4.8, I² 0%). In men, estimates ranged from 2.4-7.3% (pooled average 3.5%; 95% CI 1.9, 5.2, I² 27%). Estimates in EU/EEA Member States were statistically consistent with those in other high income countries (I² 0% for women, 6% for men). There was statistical evidence of an association between survey response rate and estimated chlamydia prevalence; estimates were higher in surveys with lower response rates, (p = 0.003 in women, 0.018 in men). CONCLUSIONS: Population-based surveys that estimate chlamydia prevalence are at risk of participation bias owing to low response rates. Estimates obtained in nationally representative samples of the general population of EU/EEA Member States are similar to estimates from other high income countries Background: Accurate information about the prevalence of Chlamydia trachomatis is needed to assess national prevention and control measures.Methods: We systematically reviewed population-based cross-sectional studies that estimated chlamydia prevalence in European Union/European Economic Area (EU/EEA) Member States and non-European high income countries from January 1990 to August 2012. We examined results in forest plots, explored heterogeneity using the I2 statistic, and conducted random effects meta-analysis if appropriate. Meta-regression was used to examine the relationship between study characteristics and chlamydia prevalence estimates.Results: We included 25 population-based studies from 11 EU/EEA countries and 14 studies from five other high income countries. Four EU/EEA Member States reported on nationally representative surveys of sexually experienced adults aged 18–26 years (response rates 52–71%). In women, chlamydia point prevalence estimates ranged from 3.0–5.3%; the pooled average of these estimates was 3.6% (95% CI 2.4, 4.8, I2 0%). In men, estimates ranged from 2.4–7.3% (pooled average 3.5%; 95% CI 1.9, 5.2, I2 27%). Estimates in EU/EEA Member States were statistically consistent with those in other high income countries (I2 0% for women, 6% for men). There was statistical evidence of an association between survey response rate and estimated chlamydia prevalence; estimates were higher in surveys with lower response rates, (p = 0.003 in women, 0.018 in men).

Details

Language :
English
ISSN :
19326203
Volume :
10
Issue :
1
Database :
OpenAIRE
Journal :
PLoS ONE
Accession number :
edsair.doi.dedup.....f80d0e0f873560cf05a1633903578ff9
Full Text :
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0115753