1.Price, MJ et al. (2016) The natural history of Chlamydia trachomatis infection in women: a multi parameter evidence synthesis. Health Technology Assesment 20, 1–249.
2.van den Broek, IVF et al. (2012) Effectiveness of yearly, register based screening for chlamydia in the Netherlands: controlled trial with randomised stepped wedge implementation. British Medical Journal 345, e4316.
3.Low, N et al. (2009) Effectiveness of chlamydia screening: systematic review. International Journal of Epidemiology 38, 435–448.
4. National Audit Office (2009) Young People's Sexual Health: The National Chlamydia Screening Programme. London: The Stationery Office.
5.Committee of Public Accounts (2010) Young people's sexual health: The National Chlamydia screening programme. Committee's 7th report, session 2009–10. London: The Stationery Office.
7.Public Health England (2018) Sexually transmitted infections and screening for chlamydia in England, 2017. Health Protection Report 12, 1–26.
8.Sonnenberg, P et al. (2013) Prevalence, risk factors, and uptake of interventions for sexually transmitted infections in Britain: findings from the National Surveys of Sexual Attitudes and Lifestyles (Natsal). The Lancet 382, 1795–1806.
9.Erens, B et al. (2014) Methodology of the third British National Survey of Sexual attitudes and lifestyles (NATSAL-3). Sexually Transmitted Infections 90, 84–89.
10.McCadden, A et al. (2005) Chlamydia trachomatis testing in the second British national survey of sexual attitudes and lifestyles: respondent uptake and treatment outcomes. Sexually Transmitted Diseases 32, 387–394.
11.Woodhall, SC (2015) Has Opportunistic Screening Among Young Adults in England Led to a Reduction in Chlamydia Trachomatis Infection? Identifying and Appraising Outcome Measures for the Evaluation of Chlamydia Control Programmes (Dissertation). University College London, London, UK.
12.Horner, P et al. (2013) C. trachomatis pgp3 antibody prevalence in young women in England, 1993–2010. PLoS ONE 8, e72001.
13.Mindell, J et al. (2012) Cohort profile: the health survey for England. International Journal of Epidemiology 41, 1585–1593.
14.Price, M et al. (2013) Mixture-of-exponentials models to explain heterogeneity in studies of the duration of Chlamydia trachomatis infection. Statistics in Medicine 32, 1547–1560.
15.Ades, AE and Sutton, AJ (2006) Multiparameter evidence synthesis in epidemiology and medical decision making: current appoaches. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society (A) 169, 5–35.
16.Woodhall, SC et al. (2015) Is chlamydia screening and testing in Britain reaching young adults at risk of infection? Findings from the third National Survey of Sexual Attitudes and Lifestyles (Natsal-3). Sexually Transmitted Infectections 92, 218–227.
17.Rosenbaum, P and Rubin, DB (1983) The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika 70, 41–45.
18.Low, N et al. (2007) Epidemiological, social, diagnostic and economic evaluation of population screening for genital chlamydia infection. Health Technology Assessment 11.
19.Macleod, J et al. (2005) Coverage and uptake of systematic postal screening for genital Chlamydia trachomatis and prevalence of infection in the United Kingdom general population: cross sectional study. British Medical Journal 330, 940–942.
20.Gaydos, C et al. (2004) Comparison of three nucleic acid amplification tests for detection of Chlamydia trachomatis in urine specimens. Journal of Clinical Microbiology 42, 3041–3045.
22.Schachter, J et al. (1994) Ligase chain reaction to detect Chlamydia trachomatis infection of the cervix. Journal of Clinical Microbiology 32, 2540–2543.
23.Lee, HH et al. (1995) Diagnosis of Chlamydia trachomatis genitourinary infection in women by ligase chain reaction assay of urine. The Lancet 345, 213–216.
24.Chernesky, MA et al. (1994) Diagnosis of Chlamydia trachomatis urethral infection in symptomatic and asymptomatic men by testing first-void urine in a ligase chain reaction assay. Journal of Clinical Microbiology 170, 1308–1311.
25.Hadgu, A (1996) The discrepancy in discrepant analysis. The Lancet 348, 592–593.
26.Schachter, J et al. (2006) Detection of Chlamydia trachomatis by nucleic acid amplification testing: our evaluation suggests that CDC-recommended approaches for confirmatory testing are ill-advised. Journal of Clinical Microbiology 44, 2512–2517.
27.Alonzo, TA and Pepe, MS (1999) Using a combination of reference tests to assess the accuracy of a new diagnostic test. Statistics in Medicine 18, 2987–3003.
28.Black, CM et al. (2002) Head-to-head multicenter comparison of DNA probe and nucleic acid amplification tests for Chlamydia trachomatis infection in women performed with an improved reference standard. Journal of Clinical Microbiology 40, 3757–3563.
29.Schiller, I et al. (2015) Bias due to composite reference standards in diagnostic accuracy studies. Statistics in Medicine 35, 1454–1470.
30.Mercer, CH et al. (2013) Changes in sexual attitudes and lifestyles in Britain through the life course and over time: findings from the National Surveys of Sexual Attitudes and Lifestyles (Natsal). The Lancet 382, 1781–1794.
31.Clifton, S et al. (2016) Patterns of chlamydia testing in different settings and implications for wider STI diagnosis and care: a probability sample survey of the British population. Sexually Transmitted Infections 93, 276–283.
32.Chandra, NL et al. (2017) Filling in the gaps: estimating numbers of chlamydia tests and diagnoses by age group and sex before and during the implementation of the English National Screening Programme, 2000 to 2012. Euro Surveillance 22, 30453.
33.Turner, KME et al. (2013) Chlamydia screening, retesting and repeat diagnoses in Cornwall, UK 2003–2009. Sexually Transmitted Infections 89, 70–75.
34.Little, RJA and Rubin, DB (2002) Statistical Analysis with Missing Data, 2 Edn. New Jersey: Wiley.
35.Winship, C and Mare, R (1992) Models for sample selection bias. Annual Review of Sociology 18, 327–3550.
36.Lewis, J and White, PJ (2017) Estimating local Chlamydia incidence and prevalence using surveillance data. Epidemiology 28, 492–502.
37.Lewis, J and White, PJ (2018) Changes in chlamydia prevalence and duration of infection estimated from testing and diagnosis rates in England: a model-based analysis using surveillance data, 2000–15. The Lancet Public Health 3, e271–e278.
38.Soldan, K, Dunbar, JK and Goill, ON (2018) Estimating chlamydia prevalence: more difficult than modelling suggests. The Lancet Public Health 3, e416.
39.Lorimer, K, Reid, ME and Hart, GJ (2009) Willingness of young men and women to be tested for Chlamydia trachomatis in three non-medical settings in Glasgow, UK. Journal of Family Planning and Reproductive Health Care 35, 21–26.
40.Spiegelhalter, DJ et al. (2014) The deviance information criterion: 12 years on. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society (B) 76, 485–493.