Home sampling versus conventional swab sampling for screening of Chlamydia trachomatis in women: a cluster-randomized 1-year follow-up study

Clin Infect Dis. 2000 Oct;31(4):951-7. doi: 10.1086/318139. Epub 2000 Oct 25.


We compared the efficacy of a screening program for urogenital Chlamydia trachomatis infections based on home sampling with that of a screening program based on conventional swab sampling performed at a physician's office. Female subjects, comprising students at 17 high schools in the county of Aarhus, Denmark, were divided into a study group (tested by home sampling) and a control group (tested in a physician's office). We assessed the number of new infections and the number of subjects who reported being treated for pelvic inflammatory disease (PID) at 1 year of follow-up; 443 (51.1%) of 867 women in the intervention group and 487 (58.5%) of 833 women in the control group were available for follow-up. Thirteen (2.9%) and 32 (6.6%) new infections were identified in the intervention group and the control group, respectively (Wilcoxon exact value, P=.026). Nine (2.1%) women in the intervention group and 20 (4.2%) in the control group reported being treated for PID (P=.045), indicating that a screening strategy involving home sampling is associated with a lower prevalence of C. trachomatis and a lower proportion of reported cases of PID.

Publication types

  • Clinical Trial
  • Comparative Study
  • Controlled Clinical Trial
  • Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

MeSH terms

  • Adolescent
  • Adult
  • Bacteriological Techniques
  • Chlamydia Infections / diagnosis*
  • Chlamydia Infections / epidemiology
  • Chlamydia trachomatis / isolation & purification*
  • Denmark / epidemiology
  • Female
  • Follow-Up Studies
  • Humans
  • Male
  • Mass Screening / methods*
  • Pelvic Inflammatory Disease / epidemiology
  • Pelvic Inflammatory Disease / prevention & control
  • Self-Examination