Environmental scan of available guidelines for chlamydia and gonorrhea screening recommendations for non-pregnant adolescents/adults in developed countries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Over the past ten years, there has been a steady increase in the reported rates of gonorrhea and chlamydia in Canada, with gonorrhea rising by 171% and chlamydia by 26%. Objective: To collect and synthesize national and international chlamydia and gonorrhea screening guidelines to inform the revision of the current Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC) recommendations. Methods: A scan of published chlamydia and gonorrhea screening guidelines of high-income countries was conducted. Guidelines were appraised using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation II (AGREE II) and PROGRESS-Plus tools. Results: A total of 17 guidelines on chlamydia and gonorrhea screening published between 2015 and 2023 were included in this review. The overall score of the AGREE II methodological assessment ranged from a rating of three to seven out of seven points. Only one guideline fully met the considerations identified in the assessment tool. Most international organizations recommend universal screening for chlamydia, and a few organizations recommend opportunistic screening and targeted/risk-based screening. As for gonorrhea screening, organizations mostly recommend targeted/risk-based screening and a few organizations recommend universal screening. None of the international gonorrhea guidelines recommended opportunistic screening. The implementation of universal screening has been shown to have minimal negative impact on the individuals being screened, while increasing testing rates. Most guidelines recommend screening individuals <25 years of age, while only two organizations recommend screening individuals <30 years of age. Conclusion: and recommend universal screening for individuals <25 years of age.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.046 | 0.177 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.017 | 0.018 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".