IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/aph/ajpbhl/1990805545-550_4.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Screening for Chlamydia trachomatis in adolescent males: A cost-based decision analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Randolph, A.G.
  • Washington, A.E.

Abstract

To evaluate the cost and benefits of screening tests for Chlamydia trachomatis in adolescent males, we developed a decision analysis model and compared the leukocyte esterase urine dipstick test with culture, with direct-smear fluorescent antibody (DFA), and with the option of no screening (no treatment). The leukocyte esterase test has the lowest average cost-per-cure ($51) compared with direct-smear fluorescent antibody ($192) and culture ($414). Compared with the DFA, we estimate that the leukocyte esterase test saves over $9,727 per cohort of 1,000 sexually active adolescent males screened. Sensitivity analyses show the leukocyte esterase test results in a lower cost-per-cure and lower overall costs (per cohort) than culture and direct-smear fluorescent antibody at any prevalence of C. trachomatis infection, and lower overall costs (per cohort) than no screening at prevalences above 21 percent.

Suggested Citation

  • Randolph, A.G. & Washington, A.E., 1990. "Screening for Chlamydia trachomatis in adolescent males: A cost-based decision analysis," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 80(5), pages 545-550.
    • Handle: RePEc:aph:ajpbhl:1990:80:5:545-550_4
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:aph:ajpbhl:1990:80:5:545-550_4. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Christopher F Baum (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.apha.org .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.