Validity of self-reported history of Chlamydia trachomatis infection.

BACKGROUND: Chlamydia trachomatis infection is common and largely asymptomatic in women. If untreated, it can lead to sequelae such as pelvic inflammatory disease and infertility. It is unknown whether a patient's self-reported history of Chlamydia trachomatis infection is a valid marker of past infection. OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to evaluate the validity of women's self-reported history of Chlamydia trachomatis infection compared with Chlamydia trachomatis serology, a marker for previous infection. STUDY DESIGN: We analyzed data from the Fertility After Contraception Termination study. We compared participants' survey responses with the question, "Have you ever been told by a health care provider that you had Chlamydia?" to serological test results indicating the presence or absence of antibodies to Chlamydia trachomatis as assessed by a microimmunofluorescence assay. Prevalence of past infection, sensitivity, specificity, predictive values, and likelihood ratios were calculated. The Cohen's kappa statistic was computed to assess agreement between self-report and serology. RESULTS: Among 409 participants, 108 (26%) reported having a history of Chlamydia trachomatis infection, whereas 146 (36%) had positive serological test results. Relative to positive microimmunofluorescence assay, the sensitivity and specificity of self-reported history of Chlamydia trachomatis infection were 52.1% (95% confidence interval, 43.6-60.4%) and 87.8% (95% confidence interval, 83.3-91.5%), respectively. The positive predictive value of the self-report was 70.4% (95% confidence interval, 60.8-78.8%), and the negative predictive value was 76.7% (95% confidence interval, 71.6-81.4%). The likelihood ratio was found to be 4.28. Agreement between self-report and serology was found to be moderate (kappa = 0.42, P < .001). CONCLUSION: Self-reported history of Chlamydia trachomatis infection commonly yields false-negative and false-positive results. When definitive status of past Chlamydia trachomatis infection is needed, serology should be obtained.

Ease of removal of malpositioned intrauterine devices: A retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare removal timing, techniques, and success of malpositioned intrauterine device (IUDs) to nonmalpositioned IUDs. STUDY DESIGN: We performed a retrospective cohort study of IUD users with ultrasound performed between July 2014 and July 2017 within one medical system. We used Fisher exact and Wilcoxon rank-sum tests to compare clinical characteristics and IUD removal details between patients with malpositioned and nonmalpositioned IUDs. RESULTS: Of 1759 ultrasounds reporting the presence of an IUD, 436 described IUD malposition. Of these, 150 described the IUD as embedded and 16 as partially perforated. IUDs were more likely to be removed and removed sooner for patients with malpositioned compared with nonmalpositioned IUDs (281/436 vs 545/1323, p < 0.001 and median 17 days vs 236 days from the index ultrasound, p < 0.001). Most IUDs, malpositioned and nonmalpositioned, were removed on the first attempt (82%, 85%), by a generalist obstetrician and gynecologist (75%, 70%), using a ring forceps (73%, 65%). Most embedded and partially perforated IUDs were removed (68%, 69%), using a ring forceps (59%, 67%), on the first attempt (84%, 91%). CONCLUSIONS: Malpositioned IUDs were more likely to be removed and removed sooner than nonmalpositioned IUDs. Most IUDs, even IUDs labeled as partially perforated or embedded, were removed by a generalist obstetrician and gynecologist, using ring forceps, on first attempt. IMPLICATIONS: Ultrasound findings of IUD malposition are not associated with difficult IUD removal.