Table 1.
Distribution of numbers of PID after 8 years, posterior mean % in each category (95% credible intervals), compared to the findings from the Lund study (see text)
| No. of episodes | Model: all PID | Model: diagnosed PID | Lund study |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age 16–24 years | |||
| 1 PID | 66·3 (51·3–78·0) | 85·4 (78·3–90·2) | 77·7 (75·1–80·3) |
| 2 PID | 23·6 (18·3–27·2) | 12·8 (9·1–17·8) | 16·0 (13·8–18·4) |
| ⩾3 PID | 10·1 (3·75–21·5) | 1·8 (0·7–3·9) | 6·2 (4·8–7·8) |
| Age 25–44 years | |||
| 1 PID | 75·2 (62·3–84·7) | 90·0 (84·4–93·5) | 87·0 (82·6–90·9) |
| 2 PID | 19·3 (13·5–25·0) | 9·3 (6·2–13·6) | 11·0 (7·5–15·1) |
| ⩾3 PID | 5·5 (1·8–12·7) | 0·9 (0·3–2·0) | 2·0 (0·6–4·0) |
PID, Pelvic inflammatory disease.
Comparison between observed and predicted proportions is only relevant for PIDs that are second or third (or more) PID episodes - the numbers not in italics (see text).