Table 3

 Summary of characteristics of economic evaluations of diagnostic tests for use in chlamydia screening, in chronological order

First author, year, referenceDiagnostic testOutcomeModelTarget populationCost effectiveness, screening recommended
NAATEIAOtherMOAShort
 >termStaticTDMF onlyM&FM onlyYesNoComments
C, comparator; NAAT, nucleic acid amplification test; PCR, polymerase chain reaction; SDA, strand displacement analysis; LCR, ligase chain reaction; LE, leucocyte esterase test; EIA, enzyme immunoassay; DFA, direct fluorescent antibody test; MOA, major outcome averted; TDM, transmission dynamic model, M, male, F, female; ICER, incremental cost effectiveness ratio.
Mrus, 200345CUrine LE test produced lowest ICER
Sahin-Hodogugil, 200352Joint focus with treatment. Mass treatment with doxycline was most cost effective strategy
Browning, 200148CNoneSDA assay best test in genitourinary clinics
Scoular, 200146CNoneNot specifiedTesting with LCR would provide health gains
Nyari, 200153Screen by amplified Gen-Probe is best
Knight, 200057No outcomeCost study only. LCR lowers costs but global screening not cost effective
Kacena, 199854NonePooling study. Pools of 4 reduces cost at prevalence <8%
Peeling, 199847CNoneTargeted screening reduces costs in Canada
Howell, 199855CCLCR on cervical specimens most cost effective
Dryden, 199449CNoneResult presented as cost per infection cured
Sellors, 199350CNoneLE urine strip accurate at lower cost than NAAT
Estany, 198956DFA and EIA cost effective for given prevelance
Nettleman, 198851Culture compared to antigen testing not cost effective