FREE NEJM E-TOC    HOME   |   SUBSCRIBE   |   CURRENT ISSUE   |   PAST ISSUES   |   COLLECTIONS   |   Search Term  Advanced Search

Sign in | Get NEJM's E-Mail Table of Contents — Free | Subscribe

Previous Volume 335:1531-1533 November 14, 1996 Number 20 Next

	Since this article has no abstract, we have provided an extract of the first 100 words of the full text and any section headings.

	Full Text Purchase this article Add to Personal Archive Add to Citation Manager Notify a Friend E-mail When Cited Related Article by Scholes, D. PubMed Citation

To the Editor: In the study by Scholes et al. (May 23 issue),¹ which examined whether screening for and treatment of chlamydia prevented pelvic inflammatory disease, 1009 women were randomly assigned to screening and treatment, but only 645 were actually screened. Of these 645 women, 44 had positive tests and received treatment, with 7 cases of pelvic inflammatory disease subsequently identified. However, the authors did not state whether any of the cases occurred in the 44 women who tested positive for cervical chlamydial infection. The remaining 364 women were not screened, received no intervention at all, and hence do not . . . [Full Text of this Article]

References

This article has been cited by other articles:

• Hay, S., Hay, P., Oakeshott, P. (2004). Feasibility of recruiting in a student bar for a trial of chlamydia screening in young women. Fam Pract 21: 223-224 [Full Text]  
• Low, N., Egger, M. (2002). What should we do about screening for genital chlamydia?. Int J Epidemiol 31: 891-893 [Full Text]  
• Macleod, J., Smith, G. D. (1999). Chlamydia screening can have high take-up rates if right methodology is used. BMJ 319: 188b-188 [Full Text]