| Literature DB >> 23056195 |
Evy Gillet1, Joris F A Meys, Hans Verstraelen, Rita Verhelst, Philippe De Sutter, Marleen Temmerman, Davy Vanden Broeck.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Bacterial vaginosis (BV), the most common vaginal disorder among women of reproductive age, has been suggested as co-factor in the development of cervical cancer. Previous studies examining the relationship between BV and cervical intra-epithelial neoplasia (CIN) provided inconsistent and conflicting results. The aim of this study is to clarify the association between these two conditions.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2012 PMID: 23056195 PMCID: PMC3462776 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0045201
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Overview of studies included in meta-analysis BV – CIN.
| Year of publication | Authors | Country | Study year(s) | Nr cases enrolled | Participants | Age range (in years) | Cervical lesion diagnosis | Grade cervical lesions | BV diagnosis | BV prevalence |
| 1985 | Guijon et al | Canada | - | 87 | mix | - | Hist | CIN I–III | Amsel | 34.94% |
| 1992 | Guijon et al | Canada | - | 185 | mix | 17–33 | Hist | CIN I–III | Amsel | 36.76% |
| 1993 | Kharsany et al | South Africa | - | 48 | referred | 18–52 | Hist | CIN I–III | Amsel | 37.50% |
| 1994 | Platz-Christensen et al | Sweden | Archival smears from 1976 | 6150 | screened | 32–36 | Cyt | CIN I–III | Clue cells | 10.03% |
| 1995 | Eltabbakh et al | US | Jan 1991–Jan 1994 | 963 | attendees | 13–78 | Cyt | LSIL–HSIL | Amsel | 28.87% |
| 1995 | Peters et al | The Netherlands | Sep 1988–Sep 1993 | 280 | referred | 20–66 | Hist | CIN I–III | Mod Amsel | 20.00% |
| 1997 | Barrington et al | UK | - | 200 | mix | 17–55 | Hist | CIN I–III | Clue cells | 22.50% |
| 1997 | Frega et al | Italy | - | 1.008 | attendees | 17–60 | Hist | CIN I–III | Amsel | 42.46% |
| 1998 | Uthayakumar | UK | Jan 1991 and July 1994 | 300 | attendees | - | Hist | CIN I–III | Amsel | 24.49% |
| 2000 | Schiff et al | US | Nov 1994–Oct 1997 | 628 | mix | 18–45 | Hist | CIN II–III | Nugent | 36.84% |
| 2001 | Castle et al | Costa Rica | 1993–1994 | 8.582 | screened | - | Hist | High-grade lesions | Nugent | 34.51% |
| 2002 | Behbakht et al | US | Jan 2000–Oct 2000 | 51 | mix | 13–65 | Hist | Dysplasia | Nugent | 49.02% |
| 2003 | Boyle et al | UK | Sept 1996–June 1998 | 379 | attendees | 16–58 | Cyt | Dyskaryotic smears | Amsel | 32.45% |
| 2006 | Discacciati et al | Brazil | - | 220 | attendees | - | Cyt | LSIL-HSIL | Clue cells | 15.00% |
| 2006 | Spinillo et al | Italy | Jan 1996–Dec 2004 | 216 | HIV attendees | - | Hist | CIN I–III | Amsel | 17.27% |
| 2007 | Vetrano et al | Italy | 1991–2003 | 504 | attendees | 18–61 | Hist | CIN I–III | Amsel | 41.67% |
| 2008 | Lehtovirta et al | Finland | Jan 1989–May 2006 | 153 | HIV attendees | - | Hist | CIN I–III | Clue cells | 24.18% |
| 2009 | Nam et al | South-Korea | Sep 2002–May 2006 | 510 | mix | - | Hist | CIN I–III | Amsel | 10.98% |
Incidence study.
Abbreviations: CIN = Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia, Hist = Histology, Cyt = Cytology, LSIL = Low-grade Squamous Intraepithelial Lesion, HSIL = High-grade Intraepithelial Lesion, BV = Bacterial Vaginosis, Mod Amsel = Modified Amsel criteria.
Participants: referred (women referred to colposcopy clinic because of abnormal Pap-smear), attendees (women attending family planning or obstetrics and gynaecology clinics), screened (population sample, screening), mix (referred, attendees and/or screened); two studies include HIV-infected women.
Overview of Dutch studies using the KOPAC system.
| Year of publication | Authors | Study year(s) | Nr smears or ♀ enrolled | Indication smear | Age range (in years) | Diagnosis CL | Grade CL | BV diagnosis | BV prevalence |
| 2009 | Roeterset al | 1991–2008 | 1.008.879 smears | screening | 18–72 | Cyt (P5–P9) | HSIL | dysbacteriosis --> ‘clue cells’ | 3.14% |
| 2009 | Roeterset al | 1991–2008 | 1.008.879 smears | Symptoms or follow-up | 18–72 | Cyt (P5–P9) | HSIL | dysbacteriosis --> ‘clue cells’ | 5.48% |
| 2007 | Engbertset al | 1991–2003 | 100.605 ♀ | screening | 30–60 | Cyt (P4–P9) | LSIL-HSIL | dysbacteriosis --> ‘clue cells’ | 5.27% |
| 2006 | Verbruggen et al | 1995–2002 | 445.080 smears | screening | 30–60 | Cyt (P4–P9) | LSIL-HSIL | dysbacteriosis --> ‘clue cells’ | 3.61% |
Incidence study.
Abbreviations: CL = Cervical Lesions, Cyt = Cytology, P = Plaveiselcelepitheel (KOPAC system), LSIL = Low-grade Squamous Intraepithelial Lesion, HSIL = High-grade Intraepithelial Lesion, BV = Bacterial Vaginosis.
Figure 1Study selection flowchart for meta-analysis BV – CIN.
Figure 2Box plots showing the difference in BV prevalence depending on BV diagnostic criteria (Amsel, Clue cells only and Nugent).
Comparison between data distribution (box plots) and estimated average (full vertical line).
Figure 3Forest plot of studies included in meta-analysis BV – CIN.
Each study is represented by a black square and a horizontal line, which corresponds to the odds ratio (OR) and its symmetric 95% confidence interval (CI). The area of the square reflects the weight each study contributes to the meta-analysis. The diamond at the bottom of the graph represents the combined OR and its 95% CI, calculated using a random effects model. The solid vertical line corresponds to no association (OR 1.0), the dotted vertical line to the combined OR (1.51). The OR (or estimates ES), 95% CI and weights are also given in tabular form.
Figure 4Box plots according to BV diagnostic criteria and study population.
Each box plot represents a summary of 5 data: 25th and 75th percentile or inter-quartile range of the data (left and right edge of box, respectively), the median (vertical band near the middle of the box), the minimum and maximum data value (ends of horizontal lines or whiskers). Full horizontal lines represent OR and its 95% CI according to BV diagnosis (left) and stratified by study population (right), estimated by random effects regression model. Difference in odds ratio (logarithmic scale) depending on BV diagnostic criteria: Clue cells only (one study using Modified Amsel, i.e. presence of clue cells and positive amine whiff test) versus more stringent criteria (strict), including Nugent and Amsel. Difference in odds ratios (logarithmic scale) depending on study population, stratified as screened women and women with an indication smear (e.g. referred for colposcopy or obstetric/gynaecologic clinic attendees). Difference in odds ratio (logarithmic scale) depending on CIN diagnostic criteria: Cytology versus Histology. Difference in odds ration (logarithmic scale) depending on developing state of the country, stratified as developing and industrialized.