Obstetrics and gynecology · 2021
Performance of a Vaginal Panel Assay Compared With the Clinical Diagnosis of Vaginitis.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Broache Molly, Cammarata Catherine L, Stonebraker Elizabeth, Eckert Karen, Van Der Pol Barbara, Taylor Stephanie N
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To compare the performance of vaginitis diagnosis based on clinical assessment to molecular detection of organisms associated with bacterial vaginosis, vulvovaginal candidiasis, and Trichomonas vaginalis using a vaginal panel assay.
METHODS: This cross-sectional diagnostic accuracy study included 489 enrolled participants from five collection sites where those with vaginitis symptoms had a vaginal assay swab collected during their visit and a clinical diagnosis made. The swab was later sent to a separate testing site to perform the vaginal panel assay. Outcome measures include positive, negative, and overall percent agreement (and accompanying 95% CIs) of clinical assessment with the vaginal panel assay. P<.05 was used to distinguish significant differences in paired proportions between the vaginal panel assay and clinical diagnosis, using the McNemar test. Inter-rater agreement between the two diagnostic approaches was determined using Cohen's kappa coefficient.
RESULTS: Clinical diagnosis had a positive percent agreement with the vaginal panel assay of 57.9% (95% CI 51.5-64.2%), 53.5% (95% CI 44.5-62.4%), and 28.0% (95% CI 12.1-49.4%) for bacterial vaginosis, vulvovaginal candidiasis, and T vaginalis, respectively. Negative percent agreement for clinical diagnosis was 80.2% (95% CI 74.3-85.2%), 77.0% (95% CI 72.1-81.4%), and 99.8% (95% CI 98.7-99.9%), respectively. Sixty-five percent (67/103), 44% (26/59), and 56% (10/18) of patients identified as having bacterial vaginosis, vulvovaginal candidiasis, and T vaginalis by assay, respectively, were not treated for vaginitis based on a negative clinical diagnosis. Compared with the assay, clinical diagnosis had false-positive rates of 19.8%, 23.0%, and 0.2% for bacterial vaginosis, vulvovaginal candidiasis, and T vaginalis, respectively. Significant differences in paired proportions were observed between the vaginal panel assay and clinical diagnosis for detection of bacterial vaginosis and T vaginalis.
CONCLUSION: The vaginal panel assay could improve the diagnostic accuracy for vaginitis and facilitate appropriate and timely treatment.
FUNDING SOURCE: Becton, Dickinson and Company.
METHODS: This cross-sectional diagnostic accuracy study included 489 enrolled participants from five collection sites where those with vaginitis symptoms had a vaginal assay swab collected during their visit and a clinical diagnosis made. The swab was later sent to a separate testing site to perform the vaginal panel assay. Outcome measures include positive, negative, and overall percent agreement (and accompanying 95% CIs) of clinical assessment with the vaginal panel assay. P<.05 was used to distinguish significant differences in paired proportions between the vaginal panel assay and clinical diagnosis, using the McNemar test. Inter-rater agreement between the two diagnostic approaches was determined using Cohen's kappa coefficient.
RESULTS: Clinical diagnosis had a positive percent agreement with the vaginal panel assay of 57.9% (95% CI 51.5-64.2%), 53.5% (95% CI 44.5-62.4%), and 28.0% (95% CI 12.1-49.4%) for bacterial vaginosis, vulvovaginal candidiasis, and T vaginalis, respectively. Negative percent agreement for clinical diagnosis was 80.2% (95% CI 74.3-85.2%), 77.0% (95% CI 72.1-81.4%), and 99.8% (95% CI 98.7-99.9%), respectively. Sixty-five percent (67/103), 44% (26/59), and 56% (10/18) of patients identified as having bacterial vaginosis, vulvovaginal candidiasis, and T vaginalis by assay, respectively, were not treated for vaginitis based on a negative clinical diagnosis. Compared with the assay, clinical diagnosis had false-positive rates of 19.8%, 23.0%, and 0.2% for bacterial vaginosis, vulvovaginal candidiasis, and T vaginalis, respectively. Significant differences in paired proportions were observed between the vaginal panel assay and clinical diagnosis for detection of bacterial vaginosis and T vaginalis.
CONCLUSION: The vaginal panel assay could improve the diagnostic accuracy for vaginitis and facilitate appropriate and timely treatment.
FUNDING SOURCE: Becton, Dickinson and Company.