Table 3 Summary of characteristics of economic evaluations of diagnostic tests for use in chlamydia screening, in chronological order.

First author, year, reference	Diagnostic test			Outcome		Model		Target population			Cost effectiveness, screening recommended
	NAAT	EIA	Other	MOA	Short term	Static	TDM	F only	M&F	M only	Yes	No	Comments
Mrus, 200345	C		√		√	√			√		–		Urine LE test produced lowest ICER
Sahin‐Hodogugil, 200352			√		√	√		√			√		Joint focus with treatment. Mass treatment with doxycline was most cost effective strategy
Browning, 200148	√		C		√	None			√		–		SDA assay best test in genitourinary clinics
Scoular, 200146	√	C			√	None		Not specified			√		Testing with LCR would provide health gains
Nyari, 200153			√	√		√		√			√		Screen by amplified Gen‐Probe is best
Knight, 200057	√			No outcome			√	√			–		Cost study only. LCR lowers costs but global screening not cost effective
Kacena, 199854	√				√	None					–		Pooling study. Pools of 4 reduces cost at prevalence <8%
Peeling, 199847	√		C		√	None				√	–		Targeted screening reduces costs in Canada
Howell, 199855	√	C	C	√		√		√			–		LCR on cervical specimens most cost effective
Dryden, 199449		√	C		√	None			√		–		Result presented as cost per infection cured
Sellors, 199350	√		C		√	None				√	–		LE urine strip accurate at lower cost than NAAT
Estany, 198956			√	√		√		√			–		DFA and EIA cost effective for given prevelance
Nettleman, 198851			√		√	√			√		√		Culture compared to antigen testing not cost effective

C, comparator; NAAT, nucleic acid amplification test; PCR, polymerase chain reaction; SDA, strand displacement analysis; LCR, ligase chain reaction; LE, leucocyte esterase test; EIA, enzyme immunoassay; DFA, direct fluorescent antibody test; MOA, major outcome averted; TDM, transmission dynamic model, M, male, F, female; ICER, incremental cost effectiveness ratio.