OBJECTIVES: Trichomonas vaginalis is the most common STD worldwide and the infection has been linked with an increased risk of HIV transmission. We present a detailed comparison between conventional collection and testing methods and the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tampon test for T vaginalis. METHODS: Women were tested for the presence of T vaginalis by PCR analysis of a tampon specimen and by conventional methods which included one or more of the following: culture and microscopy from a high vaginal swab (HVS) or endocervical swab (ECS), and microscopy of a Papanicolaou (Pap) smear. RESULTS: T vaginalis was detected in 51/590 (8.6%) conventional tests and 93/590 (15.8%) tampon specimens. Retesting of all tampon PCR positive specimens confirmed 89/93 (95.7%) tests. Using the tampon PCR as the reference, the sensitivities of the different conventional sampling and testing methods for the detection of T vaginalis were 8.3% (5/60) for ECS microscopy or culture, 31% (13/42) for HVS microscopy or culture, 52.8% (19/36) for HVS directly inoculated into Trichomonas medium and 59.4% (38/64) for Pap smear. CONCLUSIONS: No conventional test in the remote setting has comparable sensitivity to PCR. The Pap smear is the next most sensitive, but requires a speculum examination. The use of PCR will allow inclusion of T vaginalis into STD screening programmes in both developed (lower prevalence) and developing (higher prevalence) countries.
OBJECTIVES:Trichomonas vaginalis is the most common STD worldwide and the infection has been linked with an increased risk of HIV transmission. We present a detailed comparison between conventional collection and testing methods and the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tampon test for T vaginalis. METHODS:Women were tested for the presence of T vaginalis by PCR analysis of a tampon specimen and by conventional methods which included one or more of the following: culture and microscopy from a high vaginal swab (HVS) or endocervical swab (ECS), and microscopy of a Papanicolaou (Pap) smear. RESULTS: T vaginalis was detected in 51/590 (8.6%) conventional tests and 93/590 (15.8%) tampon specimens. Retesting of all tampon PCR positive specimens confirmed 89/93 (95.7%) tests. Using the tampon PCR as the reference, the sensitivities of the different conventional sampling and testing methods for the detection of T vaginalis were 8.3% (5/60) for ECS microscopy or culture, 31% (13/42) for HVS microscopy or culture, 52.8% (19/36) for HVS directly inoculated into Trichomonas medium and 59.4% (38/64) for Pap smear. CONCLUSIONS: No conventional test in the remote setting has comparable sensitivity to PCR. The Pap smear is the next most sensitive, but requires a speculum examination. The use of PCR will allow inclusion of T vaginalis into STD screening programmes in both developed (lower prevalence) and developing (higher prevalence) countries.
Authors: P Wølner-Hanssen; J N Krieger; C E Stevens; N B Kiviat; L Koutsky; C Critchlow; T DeRouen; S Hillier; K K Holmes Journal: JAMA Date: 1989-01-27 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: M Laga; A Manoka; M Kivuvu; B Malele; M Tuliza; N Nzila; J Goeman; F Behets; V Batter; M Alary Journal: AIDS Date: 1993-01 Impact factor: 4.177
Authors: R M Resnick; M T Cornelissen; D K Wright; G H Eichinger; H S Fox; J ter Schegget; M M Manos Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 1990-09-19 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: S M Gelbart; J L Thomason; P J Osypowski; A V Kellett; J A James; F F Broekhuizen Journal: J Clin Microbiol Date: 1990-05 Impact factor: 5.948
Authors: C van Der Schee; A van Belkum; L Zwijgers; E van Der Brugge; E L O'neill; A Luijendijk; T van Rijsoort-Vos; W I van Der Meijden; H Verbrugh; H J Sluiters Journal: J Clin Microbiol Date: 1999-12 Impact factor: 5.948
Authors: Diane M Harper; Meghan R Longacre; Walter W Noll; Dorothy R Belloni; Bernard F Cole Journal: Ann Fam Med Date: 2003 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 5.166
Authors: S Cornelia Kaydos-Daniels; William C Miller; Irving Hoffman; Topia Banda; Willard Dzinyemba; Francis Martinson; Myron S Cohen; Marcia M Hobbs Journal: J Clin Microbiol Date: 2003-01 Impact factor: 5.948