Genital chlamydia prevalence in Europe and in non-European high income countries: systematic review and meta-analysis

Background: Accurate information about the prevalence of Chlamydia trachomatis is needed to assess national prevention and control measures. Methods: We systematically reviewed population-based cross-sectional studies that estimated chlamydia prevalence in European Union/European Economic Area (EU/EEA) Member States and non-European high income countries from January 1990 to August 2012. We examined results in forest plots, explored heterogeneity using the I2 statistic, and conducted random effects meta-analysis if appropriate. Metaregression was used to examine the relationship between study characteristics and chlamydia prevalence estimates. Results: We included 25 population-based studies from 11 EU/EEA countries and 14 studies from five other high income countries. Four EU/EEA Member States reported on nationally representative surveys of sexually experienced adults aged 18-26 years (response rates 52-71%). In women, chlamydia point prevalence estimates ranged from 3.0-5.3%; the pooled average of these estimates was 3.6% (95% CI 2.4, 4.8, I2 0%). In men, estimates ranged from 2.4-7.3% (pooled average 3.5%; 95% CI 1.9, 5.2, I2 27%). Estimates in EU/EEA Member States were statistically consistent with those in other high income countries (I2 0% for women, 6% for men). There was statistical evidence of an association between survey response rate and estimated chlamydia prevalence; estimates were higher in surveys with lower response rates, (p=0.003 in women, 0.018 in men). Conclusions: Population-based surveys that estimate chlamydia prevalence are at risk of participation bias owing to low response rates. Estimates obtained in nationally representative samples of the general population of EU/EEA Member States are similar to estimates from other high income countries.

Clinical validity of the nerve root sedimentation sign in patients with suspected lumbar spinal stenosis

BACKGROUND CONTEXT The nerve root sedimentation sign in transverse magnetic resonance imaging has been shown to discriminate well between selected patients with and without lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS), but the performance of this new test, when used in a broader patient population, is not yet known. PURPOSE To evaluate the clinical performance of the nerve root sedimentation sign in detecting central LSS above L5 and to determine its potential significance for treatment decisions. STUDY DESIGN Retrospective cohort study. PATIENT SAMPLE One hundred eighteen consecutive patients with suspected LSS (52% women, median age 62 years) with a median follow-up of 24 months. OUTCOME MEASURES Oswestry disability index (ODI) and back and leg pain relief. METHODS We performed a clinical test validation study to assess the clinical performance of the sign by measuring its association with health outcomes. Subjects were patients referred to our orthopedic spine unit from 2004 to 2007 before the sign had been described. Based on clinical and radiological diagnostics, patients had been treated with decompression surgery or nonsurgical treatment. Changes in the ODI and pain from baseline to 24-month follow-up were compared between sedimentation sign positives and negatives in both treatment groups. RESULTS Sixty-nine patients underwent surgery. Average baseline ODI in the surgical group was 54.7%, and the sign was positive in 39 patients (mean ODI improvement 29.0 points) and negative in 30 (ODI improvement 28.4), with no statistically significant difference in ODI and pain improvement between groups. In the 49 patients of the nonsurgical group, mean baseline ODI was 42.4%; the sign was positive in 18 (ODI improvement 0.6) and negative in 31 (ODI improvement 17.7). A positive sign was associated with a smaller ODI and back pain improvement than negative signs (both p<.01 on t test). CONCLUSIONS In patients commonly treated with decompression surgery, the sedimentation sign does not appear to predict surgical outcome. In nonsurgically treated patients, a positive sign is associated with more limited improvement. In these cases, surgery might be effective, but this needs investigation in prospective randomized trials (Australian New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry, number ACTRN12610000567022).