Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here to sign up for SAGE Journal Email Alerts today!

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
The Journal of the Royal Society for the Promotion of Health
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Opaneye, A A
Right arrow Articles by Ashton, V
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?

A comparison of two methods for detection of Chlamydia trachomatis in the male urethra

A A Opaneye

Department of Genitourinary Medicine, Middlesbrough General Hospital, Ayresome Green Lane, Middlesbrough, Cleveland TS5 5AZ, England

J Bashford

Public Health Laboratory Services (North), South Cleveland Hospital, Marton Road, lMiddlesbrough TS4 3TA, England

V Ashton

Medical Statistics Department, University of Teeside, Teesside TS1 3AA, England

Several methods have been put forward for screening people for Chlamydia trachomatis infection of the urogenital tract. It is often believed that culture is the gold standard. However, newer and faster methods are being developed. This study reports the result from the comparison of two methods.

Key Words: Chlamydia trachomatis • males • screening methods • urethra

The Journal of the Royal Society for the Promotion of Health, Vol. 122, No. 1, 58-60 (2002)
DOI: 10.1177/146642400212200117
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?