| Literature DB >> 26622298 |
Atef Hussein Hussein1, Mohamed Hussein Saleh1, Ibrahim Maged Nagaty1, Khaled A Ghieth1, Nagat Ahmed El-Azab1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The present study aimed to determine the prevalence and associated risk factors of vaginal trichomoniasis in women referred to gynecologic clinic in Benha University Hospital, Egypt.Entities:
Keywords: Acridine orange; Diamond’s culture; Trichomonas vaginalis; Wet mount
Year: 2015 PMID: 26622298 PMCID: PMC4662743
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Iran J Parasitol ISSN: 1735-7020 Impact factor: 1.012
Fig. 1Trichomonas vaginalis trophozoite as shown by wet mount smear (left, X630), Giemsa stain (middle, X1000) and Acridine orange (right, trophozoite stained brick red with a yellowish nucleus, X400) (Original)
Accuracy of direct wet mount and staining techniques versus Diamond’s culture, the gold standard test for diagnosis of vaginal trichomoniasis
|
|
| |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||
| Wet mount | Positive | 13 | - | 13 | Sensitivity | 59.1 | ||
| Negative | 9 | 178 | 187 | Specificity | 100 | 0.795 &0.67-0.92 | <0.001 | |
| Total | 22 | 178 | 200 | Positive predictive value | 100 | |||
| Negative predictive value | 95.2 | |||||||
| Giemsa stain | Positive | 15 | 2 | 17 | Sensitivity | 68.2 | ||
| Negative | 7 | 176 | 183 | Specificity | 98.9 | 0.835 &0.72-0.95 | <0.001 | |
| Total | 22 | 178 | 200 | Positive predictive value | 88.2 | |||
| Negative predictive value | 96.2 | |||||||
| Acridine orange stain | Positive | 18 | - | 18 | Sensitivity | 81.8 | 0.909 & 0.81-1.0 | <0.001 |
| Negative | 4 | 178 | 182 | Specificity | 100 | |||
| Total | 22 | 178 | 200 | Positive predictive value | 100 | |||
| Negative predictive value | 97.8 | |||||||
Fig. 2Receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC) analysis of sensitivity and specificity of the methods used in diagnosis of vaginal trichomoniasis
Socio-demographic profile and Clinical criteria of examined suspected women vs. detection of Trichomo nas vaginalis infection
|
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 0.59 | |||
| 20-25 | 27 | 2 (7.4) | 25 (92.6) | |
| 25-30 | 49 | 4 (8.1) | 45 (91.9) | |
| 30-35 | 42 | 7 (16.6) | 35 (83.4) | |
| 35-40 | 31 | 5 (16.1) | 26 (83.9) | |
| 40-45 | 32 | 3 (9.4) | 29 (90.6) | |
| 45-50 | 19 | 1 (5.2) | 18 (94.8) | |
|
| 0.88 | |||
| Urban | 88 | 10 (11.4) | 78 (88.6) | |
| Rural | 112 | 12 (10.7) | 100 (89.3) | |
|
| 0.59 | |||
| Higher education | 26 | 2 (7.7) | 24 (93.3) | |
| Primary and 2ry school | 102 | 10 (9.8) | 92 (90.2) | |
| Illiterate | 72 | 10 (13.9) | 62 (86.1) | |
|
| 0.38 | |||
| Married | 166 | 20 (12) | 146 (88) | |
| Unmarried (divorced or widow) | 34 | 2 (5.9) | 32 (94.1) | |
|
| ||||
| Yes | 135 | 15 (11.1) | 120 (88.9%) | 0.94 |
| No | 65 | 7 (10.8) | 58 (89.2%) | |
|
| ||||
| Yes | 84 | 17 (20.2) | 67 (79.8) | <0.001 |
| No | 116 | 5 (4.3%) | 111 (95.7) | |
|
| ||||
| Yes | 76 | 16 (21.1) | 60 (78.9) | <0.001 |
|
| ||||
| Yes | 120 | 14 (11.7) | 106 (88.3) | 0.71 |
| No | 80 | 8 (10) | 72 (90) | |
|
| ||||
| Yes | 11 | 1 (9.1) | 10 (90.9) | 1.0 |
| No | 189 | 21 (11.1) | 168 (88.9) | |
|
| ||||
| IUD | 87 | 14 (16) | 73 (84) | 0.13 |
| Hormonal | 69 | 5 (7.2) | 64 (92.8) | |
| No contraception | 44 | 3 (6.8) | 41 (93.2) |