Table 1

Summary of characteristics of economic evaluations of chlamydia screening interventions, in chronological order

First author, year, reference	Type of screening				Outcome		Model		Target population			Cost effectiveness, screening recommended
First author, year, reference	SO	SP	NSO	NSP	MOA	Short term	Static	TDM	F	M&F	M	Yes	No	Comments
SO, selective opportunistic screening; SP, selective population screening; NSO, non-selective opportunistic screening; NSP, non-selective population screening; MOA, major outcome averted; TDM, transmission dynamic model; M, males; F, females; NAAT, nucleic acid amplification test; ICER, incremental cost effectiveness ratio; “–” implies that screening is only cost effective under certain conditions or against certain comparators.
Adams, 2004²²	√				n/a		None		√			–		Cost study only
Hu, 2004²⁴	√				√		√		√			√		Annual screening women 15–29 years cost effective. Cost per quality adjusted life year (QALY) reported
Blake, 2004¹³	√						√				√	√		Universal NAAT screening most cost effective
Ginocchio, 2003²⁶			√	√	√		√				√	–		Cost effectiveness if test costs <$18
Mehta, 2002²⁵			√			√	√			√		√		Mass treatment most cost effective
Wang, 2002⁴¹				√	√		√			√		√		School based screening cost saving
Postma, 2001¹⁴	√				√		√			√		–		Partner notification improves cost effectiveness
Van Valkengoed, 2001⁴²				√	√		√		√				√	NSP screening women 15–40 years not cost effective
Goeree, 2001³⁷	√				√		√		√			–		Screening high risk women most cost effective
Postma, 2001²⁷			√		√		√		√			√		Screen women under 30 years
Welte, 2000²⁸			√		√			√		√				Screening may be cost saving in long run. High estimated probability of complications
Townshend, 2000²⁹			√		√			√		√		√		Screening cost saving after 4 years. Poor reporting of cost data
Howell, 2000³⁹		√			√		√		√			√		Screening army recruits is cost effective
Shafer, 1999¹⁵	√				√		√					–		ICER presented. Judgment unclear
Howell, 1999⁴⁰		√			√		√		√			√		Age based screen cost saving
Howell, 1998³⁰			√		√		√		√			–		Age based screening most cost effective
Gunn, 1998²³	√					√	None				√	–		Result presented as cost per case
Paavonen, 1998³¹			√		√		√		√			√		NSO screening cost effective even at low prevalence
Genc, 1996³²			√			√	√			√		–		Cost effective under specific conditions
Marrazzo, 1997³³			√		√		√		√			√		Screening in FP/STD clinics cost saving
Genc, 1993³⁴			√		√		√				√	–		Cost effective under specific conditions
Sellors, 1992¹⁶	√					√	None		√			–		SO screening cost effective compared to NSP
Nettleman, 1991¹⁷	√					√	None		√				√	Not cost effective to screen all pregnant women
Buhaug, 1989¹⁸	√				√		√		√			√		Testing cost effective for women <24 yrs only
Buhaug, 1989¹⁹	√				√		√		√			√		Testing cost effective for women 18–24 years only
Begley, 1989³⁵			√			√	None			√		√		Screening in FP clinics is cost effective
Skjeldestad, 1988²⁰	√					√	None		√			–		Screening for women seeking abortion
Trachtenberg, 1988²¹	√				√		√		√			√		Screening asymptomatic women is cost effective
Phillips, 1987³⁶			√			√	√		√			√		Testing for C. trachomatis is cost effective