Background
Methods
Search strategy
Inclusion and exclusion criteria
Methodological assessment of reviewed studies
Results
Description of included studies
Authors (publication year) [Reference] | Country | Men tested | Women tested | Response rate | Sampling | Test M | Test F | Invitation | Geographic area |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Valkengoed (2000)[31] | Netherlands | 1908 | 2902 | M 33.0% F 51.0% | General practices | PCR urine | PCR urine | By mail | Urban |
Fenton (2001)[32] | UK | 1474 | 2055 | Total 71.0% | General community | LCR urine | LCR urine | By mail | General population |
Obasi (2001)[33] | Tanzania | 4749 | 4686 | Total 80% | General community | PCR urine | PCR urine | By interviewer | Rural |
Turner(2002)[34] | USA | 244 | 335 | Total 79.5% | General community | LCR urine | LCR urine | By interviewer | Urban |
Miller (2004)[35] | USA | 6767 | 7555 | Total 87.6% | Schools | LCR urine | LCR urine | By interviewer | Urban and rural |
Joyee (2004)[36] | India | 603 | 841 | NS | General community | PCR urine | PCR urine | By interviewer | Urban and rural |
Latif (2004)[37] | Australia | 525 | 694 | M 43.1% F 56.9% | General community | PCR FVU | PCR VVS | By interviewer | Rural |
Klavs (2004)[29] | Slovenia | 683 | 764 | M 50.9% F 60.0% | General community | PCR urine | PCR urine | By interviewer | General population |
Bergen (2005)[38] | Netherlands | 2930 | 5453 | M 33.0% F 47.0% | General community | PCR urine | PCR urine | By mail | Urban and rural |
Götz (2005)[39] | Netherlands | 1999 | 4304 | Total 41.0% | General community | PCR urine | PCR urine | By mail | Urban and rural |
Macleod (2005)[40] | UK | 1930 | 2801 | M 26.6% F 36.4% | General practices | PCR urine | PCR urine VVS | By mail | Urban and rural |
Low (2007)[19] | UK | 1396 | 1869 | M 29.5% F 39.5% | General practices | PCR urine | PCR VVS | By mail | Urban |
Deblina Datta (2007)[41] | USA | 3096 | 3536 | Total 83.0% | General community | LCR urine | LCR urine | By interviewer | General population |
Stein (2008)[42] | USA | 5074 | 5854 | Total 88.6% | Schools | LCR urine | LCR urine | By interviewer | NS |
Adams (2008)[43] | Barbados | 190 | 207 | M 79.0% F 86.0% | General community | PCR urine | PCR urine | By interviewer | NS |
Uusküla (2008)[44] | Estonia | 215 | 345 | M 32.0% F 48.0% | General community | PCR FVU | PCR VVS | By mail | Urban and rural |
Beydoun (2010)[45] | USA | 2447 | 3164 | NS | General community | NAAT urine | NAAT urine | By interviewer | NS |
Imai (2010)[46] | Japan | 2595 | 4003 | Total 81.5% | Schools | PCR urine | PCR urine | By interviewer | NS |
Goulet (2010)[47] | France | 1135 | 1445 | M 65.0% F 71.0% | General community | PCR urine | PCR VVS | By interviewer | Urban and rural |
Parish (2011)[48] | China | 1138 | 1235 | Total 69.0% | General community | LCR urine | LCR urine | By interviewer | Urban and rural |
Desai (2011)[28] | Germany | 952 | 855 | NS | General community | NAAT urine | NAAT urine | NS | General population |
Bozicevic (2011)[49] | Croatia | 123 | 151 | M 27.9% F 37.5% | General community | PCR urine | PCR urine | By interviewer | Urban and rural |
Eggleston (2011)[50] | USA | 798 | 1322 | M 17.7% F 26.5% | General community | NAAT urine | NAAT urine | By interviewer | Urban |
Gravningen (2012)[51] | Norway | 466 | 565 | M 28.8% F 34.9% | Schools | PCR FVU | PCR FVU | Class-wise | Rural |
Klovstad (2012)[52] | Norway | 605 | 930 | M 11.9% F 18.9% | General community | NAAT FVU | NAAT FVU | By mail | Urban and rural |
Prevalence of chlamydia infection by sex
Authors (publication year) [Reference] | Overall | Men | Women | Prevalence difference by sex (p or OR) | Calculated risk difference by sex (M-F) | 95% CI |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
% (95% CI) | % (95% CI) | % (95% CI) | ||||
Valkengoed (2000)[31] | NS | 2.4 (1.7-3.0) | 2.8 (2.2-3.4) | NS | −0.4 | −1.31 ; 0.51 |
Fenton (2001)[32] | NS | 2.2 (1.5-3.2) | 1.5 (1.1-2.1) | NS | 0.7 | −0.21 ; 1.62 |
Obasi (2001)[33] | 1.8 (NS) | 1.0 (0.8-1.4) | 2.4 (2.3-2.9) | OR 2.4 (NS) | −1.4 | −1.92 ; -0.88† |
Turner(2002)[34] | 3.0 (SE 0.8) | 1.6 (NS) | 4.3 (NS) | NS | −2.7 | −5.38 ; -0.02† |
Miller (2004)[35] | 4.2 (3.5-4.9) | 3.7 (2.9-4.6) | 4.7 (3.9-5.7) | OR 1.3(1.0-1.6) | −1.0 | −1.66 ; -0.34† |
Joyee (2004)[36] | 1.1 (0.5-1.7) | 1.2 (0.4-2.0) | 1.1 (0.5-1.7) | P > 0.05 | 0.1 | −1.02 ; 1.22 |
Latif (2004)[37] | 9.6 (NS) | 9.0 (NS) | 10.0 (NS) | NS | −1.0 | −4.02 ; 2.02 |
Klavs (2004)[29] | NS | 3.0 (1.9-4.6) | 1.6 (1.0-2.7) | NS | 1.4 | −0.33 ; 3.13 |
Bergen (2005)[38] | 2.0 (1.7-2.3) | 1.5 (1.1-1.9) | 2.5 (2.0-3.0) | P < 0.001 | −1.0 | −1.60 ; -0.39† |
Götz (2005)[39] | 2.4 (2.1-2.8) | 2.0 (1.4-2.7) | 2.6 (2.2-3.2) | OR 1.4; P = 0.08 | −0.6 | −1.38 ; 0.18 |
Macleod (2005)[40] | 3.0 (2.3-3.9) | 2.8 (2.2-3.4) | 3.6 (3.1-4.9) | NS | −0.8 | −1.81 ; 0.21 |
Low (2007)[19] | NS | 5.3 (4.4-6.3) | 6.2 (4.9-7.8) | NS | −0.9 | −2.51 ; 0.71 |
Deblina Datta (2007)[41] | 2.2 (1.8-2.8) | 2.0 (1.6-2.5) | 2.5 (1.8-3.4) | NS | −0.5 | −1.21 ; 0.21 |
Stein (2008)[42] | NS | 3.9 (3.1-4.8) | 5.1 (4.2-6.0) | NS | −1.2 | −1.98 ; -0.43† |
Adams (2008)[43] | 11.3 (8.4-14.2) | 12.1 (7.7-16.5) | 10.6 (6.7-14.5) | P = 0.643 | 1.5 | −4.75 ; 7.75 |
Uusküla (2008)[44] | 5.4 (3.0-7.5)* | 2.7 (0.3-5.0)* | 6.9 (3.6-10.3)* | NS | −4.2 | −7.64 ; -0.76† |
Beydoun (2010)[45] | 1.6 (1.3-1.9) | 1.7 (NS) | 1.6 (NS) | P = 0.8 | 0.1 | −0.57 ; 0.77 |
Imai (2010)[46] | NS | 6.7 (NS) | 9.5 (NS) | NS | −2.8 | −4.12 ; -1.48† |
Goulet (2010)[47] | NS | 1.4 (0.8-2.6) | 1.6 (1.0-2.5) | NS | −0.2 | −1.14 ; 0.74 |
Parish (2011)[48] | NS | 2.1 (1.3-3.3)* | 2.6 (1.6-4.1)* | NS | −0.5 | −1.72 ; 0.72 |
Desai (2011)[28] | 0.9 (0.5-1.3) | 0.1 (0.0-0.3) | 1.8 (0.9-2.6) | P < 0.001 | −1.7 | −2.61 ; -0.79† |
Bozicevic (2011)[49] | 6.2 (3.3-9.1) | 7.3 (NS) | 5.3 (NS) | P = 0.491 | 2.0 | −3.82 ; 7.82 |
Eggleston (2011)[50] | 3.9 (2.8-5.0) | 4.5 (2.4-6.5) | 3.4 (2.2-4.6) | OR 0.6; P = 0.16 | 1.1 | −0.64 ; 2.84 |
Gravningen (2012)[51] | 4.1 (3.3-5.3) | 3.9 (2.3-6.0) | 7.3 (5.3-9.7) | NS | −3.4 | −6.17 ; -0.63† |
Klovstad (2012)[52] | 5.5 (4.5-6.8) | 5.1 (3.8-6.8) | 5.8 (4.5-6.8) | NS | −0.7 | −3.01 ; 1.61 |
Prevalence of chlamydia infection by sex and age group
Authors (publication year) [Reference] | Age group | Highest prevalence by age in men | Prevalence % (95% CI) | Highest prevalence by age in women | Prevalence % (95% CI) | sex difference by age |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Valkengoed (2000)[31] | 15-40 | 21-25 | 3.3 (1.0-5.5) | 21-25 | 4.4 (2.6-6.3) | ↔ |
Fenton (2001)[32] | 18-44 | 25-34 | 3.0 (1.7-5.1) | 18-24 | 3.0 (1.7-5.0) | ↑ |
Obasi (2001)[33] | 15-19 | 18 | 1.8 (1.0-2.8) | 19 | 3.2 (2.2-4.5) | ↓ |
Turner(2002)[34] | 18-35 | 18-20* | 8.0 (SE 3.9) | 18-20* | 8.0 (SE 3.9) | - |
Miller (2004)[35] | 18-26 | 20-21* | 4.7 (3.6-6.2) | 20-21* | 4.7 (3.6-6.2) | - |
Joyee (2004)[36] | 15-45 | 31-45 | 2.1 (0.0-5.0) | 31-35 | 1.9 (0.0-3.9) | ↑ |
Latif (2004)[37] | 18-49 | ns | ns | - | ||
Klavs (2004)[29] | 13-67 | 18-24 | 4.1 (2.2-7.4) | 18-24 | 4.1 (2.2-7.4) | ↔ |
Bergen (2005)[38] | 15-29 | 25-29 | 4.1 (2.1-6.2) | 15-19 | 4.3 (1.5-7.0) | ↑ |
Götz (2005)[39] | 15-29 | 15-19* | 3.1 | 15-19* | 3.1 | - |
Macleod (2005)[40] | 16-39 | 20-24 | 5.3 (4.4-6.3) | 20-24 | 6.2 (4.9-7.8) | ↔ |
Low (2007)[19] | 16-24 | ns | ns | - | ||
Deblina Datta (2007)[41] | 14-39 | 20-29 | 3.2 (2.4-4.3) | 14-19 | 4.6 (3.7-5.8) | ↑ |
Stein (2008)[42] | 18-26 | 18-24 | 1.0 (0.6-1.5) | 25-26 | 2.1 (1.3-3.5) | ↓ |
Adams (2008)[43] | 18-35 | 18-20* | 19.8 | 18-20* | 19.8 | - |
Uusküla (2008)[44] | 18-35 | ns | ns | - | ||
Beydoun (2010)[45] | 14-39 | <25 | 2.7 (SE 0.6) | <25 | 2.8 (SE 0.7) | ↔ |
Imai (2010)[46] | 18-39 | 20 | 8.3 | 19 | 12.2 | - |
Goulet (2010)[47] | 18-44 | 25-29 | 2.7 (0.8-8.0) | 18-24 | 3.6 (1.9-6.8) | ↑ |
Parish (2011)[48] | 20-64 | 25-34 | 3.9 (1.8-8.2) | 35-44 | 4.2 (2.7-6.7) | ↓ |
Desai (2011)[28] | 12-17 | ns | 17 | 3.7 | - | |
Bozicevic (2011)[49] | 18-25 | ns | ns | - | ||
Eggleston (2011)[50] | 15-35 | 15-19* | 8.0 (4.3-11.6) | 15-19* | 8.0 (4.3-11.6) | - |
Gravningen (2012)[51] | 15-20 | 19-20 | 7.1 | 19-20 | 11.1 | ↔ |
Klovstad (2012)[52] | 18-25 | 18-21 | 6.3 (3.9-10.0) | 18-21 | 6.6 (4.7-9.3) | ↔ |