Literature DB >> 9894174

Gram stain method shows better sensitivity than clinical criteria for detection of bacterial vaginosis in surveillance of pregnant, low-income women in a clinical setting.

M T Tam1, M Yungbluth, T Myles.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of the study is to determine whether the Gram stain method is superior to the clinical criteria for the diagnosis of bacterial vaginosis in low-income pregnant women seen in a resident clinic setting. The clinical criteria is the current diagnostic method employed to diagnose bacterial vaginosis. STUDY
DESIGN: In this study, 51 pregnant women with vaginal discharge were prospectively evaluated. All were screened using the clinical criteria, Gram stain method, and culture of the discharge. The modified scoring system instituted by Nugent et al. (J Clin Microbiol 29:297-301, 1991) was employed in reading the Gram stain smears. The clinical criteria were then compared with the Gram stain method. Isolation of moderate to many Gardnerella vaginalis growth by culture was used as the confirmatory finding.
RESULTS: Sensitivity of the Gram stain method (91%) was significantly higher than that of the clinical criteria (46%), (sign test P = 0.0023, < 0.01). The Gram stain method also has both a low false-negative (4%) and high negative predictive value (96%), making it an ideal diagnostic test.
CONCLUSION: The Gram stain method is a rapid and cost-effective test that is also highly reproducible and readily available in many laboratories. These features make the Gram stain method a more desirable screening procedure for bacterial vaginosis in a clinic population.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1998        PMID: 9894174      PMCID: PMC1784815          DOI: 10.1002/(SICI)1098-0997(1998)6:5<204::AID-IDOG3>3.0.CO;2-R

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Infect Dis Obstet Gynecol        ISSN: 1064-7449


  19 in total

1.  Reproducibility of a scoring system for gram stain diagnosis of bacterial vaginosis.

Authors:  M R Joesoef; S L Hillier; S Josodiwondo; M Linnan
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  1991-08       Impact factor: 5.948

Review 2.  Bacterial vaginosis.

Authors:  C A Spiegel
Journal:  Clin Microbiol Rev       Date:  1991-10       Impact factor: 26.132

3.  Reproducibility of interpretation of Gram-stained vaginal smears for the diagnosis of bacterial vaginosis.

Authors:  T Mazzulli; A E Simor; D E Low
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  1990-07       Impact factor: 5.948

4.  Relationships of vaginal Lactobacillus species, cervical Chlamydia trachomatis, and bacterial vaginosis to preterm birth.

Authors:  J Martius; M A Krohn; S L Hillier; W E Stamm; K K Holmes; D A Eschenbach
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  1988-01       Impact factor: 7.661

5.  Proline aminopeptidase activity as a rapid diagnostic test to confirm bacterial vaginosis.

Authors:  J L Thomason; S M Gelbart; L M Wilcoski; A K Peterson; B J Jilly; P R Hamilton
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  1988-04       Impact factor: 7.661

6.  Comparison of methods for diagnosing bacterial vaginosis among pregnant women.

Authors:  M A Krohn; S L Hillier; D A Eschenbach
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  1989-06       Impact factor: 5.948

7.  Bacterial vaginosis in early pregnancy and pregnancy outcome.

Authors:  T Kurki; A Sivonen; O V Renkonen; E Savia; O Ylikorkala
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  1992-08       Impact factor: 7.661

Review 8.  The role of bacterial vaginosis as a cause of amniotic fluid infection, chorioamnionitis and prematurity--a review.

Authors:  J Martius; D A Eschenbach
Journal:  Arch Gynecol Obstet       Date:  1990       Impact factor: 2.344

9.  Reliability of diagnosing bacterial vaginosis is improved by a standardized method of gram stain interpretation.

Authors:  R P Nugent; M A Krohn; S L Hillier
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  1991-02       Impact factor: 5.948

10.  Bacterial vaginosis as a risk factor for post-cesarean endometritis.

Authors:  D H Watts; M A Krohn; S L Hillier; D A Eschenbach
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  1990-01       Impact factor: 7.661

View more
  5 in total

Review 1.  Wound microbiology and associated approaches to wound management.

Authors:  P G Bowler; B I Duerden; D G Armstrong
Journal:  Clin Microbiol Rev       Date:  2001-04       Impact factor: 26.132

2.  Utility of Amsel criteria, Nugent score, and quantitative PCR for Gardnerella vaginalis, Mycoplasma hominis, and Lactobacillus spp. for diagnosis of bacterial vaginosis in human immunodeficiency virus-infected women.

Authors:  Beverly E Sha; Hua Y Chen; Qiong J Wang; M Reza Zariffard; Mardge H Cohen; Gregory T Spear
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2005-09       Impact factor: 5.948

3.  Relative performance of three methods for diagnosing bacterial vaginosis during pregnancy.

Authors:  Vijaya K Hogan; Jennifer F Culhane; Jane Hitti; Virginia A Rauh; Kelly F McCollum; Kathy J Agnew
Journal:  Matern Child Health J       Date:  2007-09-15

4.  The laboratory diagnosis of bacterial vaginosis.

Authors:  Deborah Money
Journal:  Can J Infect Dis Med Microbiol       Date:  2005-03       Impact factor: 2.471

5.  Antibody-based detection and inhibition of vaginolysin, the Gardnerella vaginalis cytolysin.

Authors:  Tara M Randis; Ritwij Kulkarni; Jorge L Aguilar; Adam J Ratner
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2009-04-16       Impact factor: 3.240

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.