You are here

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
Editorial
A pathway to chlamydia control: updated ECDC guidance
  1. Bethan Davies,
  2. Helen Ward
  1. Department of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, Imperial College London, London, UK
  1. Correspondence to Dr Bethan Davies, Department of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, St Mary's Campus, Imperial College London, Norfolk Place, London W2 1PG, UK; Bethan.davies06{at}imperial.ac.uk

https://doi.org/10.1136/sextrans-2015-052506

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    In 2009, the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) published guidance on chlamydia (Chlamydia trachomatis) control in Europe.1 In it we recommended that EU/EEA member states ensure the provision of basic resources and systems (for diagnosis, case and partner management) before embarking on any expanded screening programme. This guidance was based on evidence first that there was a huge variation in availability of clinical services for chlamydia across member states, and second that the evidence for population level programmes was missing.1 ,2 This month ECDC has released updated guidance that we developed with the support of ECDC experts following a programme of work to update the evidence, including an extensive review of the epidemiology and natural history of chlamydia and the clinical and cost-effectiveness of screening programmes.3 The team also repeated the survey of member states, and assessed the impact of the original guidance.4 ,5

    The survey showed that more countries had established essential diagnostic and management facilities and guidelines;6 it was hard to attribute this …

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Contributors This editorial was drafted by BD and HW.

    • Funding BD and HW have received funding from the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control for this programme of work.

    • Competing interests BD and HW have received personal consultancy fees from the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control for this programme of work.

    • Provenance and peer review Commissioned; internally peer reviewed.