| Literature DB >> 31673281 |
Yuejuan Liang1, Mengjie Chen1, Lu Qin1, Bing Wan1, He Wang1.
Abstract
Microecology is an emerging discipline in recent years. The female reproductive tract is an important microecological region, and its microecological environment can directly affect women's cervical health. This meta-analysis aimed to analyze the effects of vaginal microecology on Human papillomavirus (HPV) infection and cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN). PubMed and Web of Science were systematically searched for eligible publications from January 2000 to December 2017. Articles were selected on the basis of specific inclusion and exclusion criteria. The design and quality of all studies were evaluated using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). Odds ratios (ORs) with a 95% confidence interval (95% CI) were calculated. Thirteen eligible studies were selected to evaluate the association of vaginal microecology with HPV infection and CIN. The factors related to HPV infection were bacterial vaginosis (BV) (OR 2.57, 95% CI 1.78-3.71, P<0.05), Candida albicans (VVC) (OR 0.63, 95% CI 0.49-0.82, P < 0.05), Chlamydia trachomatis (CT) (OR 3.16, 95% CI 2.55-3.90, P < 0.05), and Ureaplasma urealyticum (UU) (OR 1.35, 95% CI 1.20-1.51, P < 0.05). BV was also related to CIN (OR 1.56, 95% CI 1.21-2.00, P < 0.05). This meta-analysis of available literature suggested an intimate association of vaginal microecology and HPV infection with CIN. BV, CT and UU were associated to increased HPV infection, VVC was associated to decreased HPV infection, Lactobacillus is not associated to increased HPV infection, BV was associated to increased CIN development risk. Further large-scale studies are needed to confirm our findings.Entities:
Keywords: CIN; HPV; Meta-analysis; Vaginal microecology
Year: 2019 PMID: 31673281 PMCID: PMC6815368 DOI: 10.1186/s13027-019-0243-8
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Infect Agent Cancer ISSN: 1750-9378 Impact factor: 2.965
Fig. 1Comparison of BV in the HPV-positive and -negative groups
Fig. 2Comparison of VVC in the HPV-positive and -negative groups
Fig. 3Comparison of TV in the HPV-positive and -negative groups
Fig. 4Comparison of CT in the HPV-positive and -negative groups
Fig. 5Comparison of UU in the HPV-positive and -negative groups
Fig. 6Comparison of BV in the CIN group and control group
Fig. 7Comparison of TV in the CIN group and control group
Fig. 8Comparison of VVC in the CIN group and control group
Characteristics of the selected studies included in the meta-analysis
| Authors | Year of publication | Study type | Type | Number of case | Number of control | risk factors | Quality |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| da Silva et al. [ | 2004 | Case-control | HPV | 26 | 26 | bh | 7 |
| Gao et al. [ | 2013 | Case-control | HPV | 32 | 38 | g | 7 |
| Lu et al. [ | 2015 | Case-control | HPV | 1738 | 1764 | bd | 6 |
| Caiyan et al. [ | 2012 | Case-control | CIN/HPV | 374/622 | 5985/5590 | bch | 7 |
| Marks et al. [ | 2015 | Case-control | HPV | 289 | 912 | bd | 7 |
| Behbakht et al. [ | 2002 | Case-control | CIN | 17 | 34 | b | 6 |
| Liu et al. [ | 2016 | Case-control | HPV | 1452 | 2838 | bcde | 7 |
| Murta et al. [ | 2000 | Case-control | HPV | 390 | 396 | ch | 7 |
| Rahkola et al. [ | 2009 | Case-control | HPV | 175 | 153 | b | 7 |
| Zhang et al. [ | 2017 | Case-control | HPV | 76 | 878 | bcdeh | 6 |
| Schiff et al. [ | 2000 | Case-control | CIN | 112 | 326 | bcd | 7 |
| Verteramo et al. [ | 2009 | Case-control | HPV | 266 | 591 | bcdeh | 7 |
| Barcelos et al. [ | 2011 | Case-control | CIN | 70 | 30 | bch | 7 |
Note:b (BV), c (TV), d (CT), e (UU), g (Lactobacillus), h (VVC). aa one participant in 954 women with the laboratory results of vaginal swab specimens missed the data of Candida, CT and UU