Obstetrics and gynecology · 2009
Accuracy of the clinical diagnosis of vaginitis compared with a DNA probe laboratory standard.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяПоддержка NIH: внешняя программаНазвание 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.
Lowe Nancy K, Neal Jeremy L, Ryan-Wenger Nancy A
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To estimate the accuracy of the clinical diagnosis of the three most common causes of acute vulvovaginal symptoms (bacterial vaginosis, candidiasis vaginitis, and trichomoniasis vaginalis) using a traditional, standardized clinical diagnostic protocol compared with a DNA probe laboratory standard.
METHODS: This prospective clinical comparative study had a sample of 535 active-duty United States military women presenting with vulvovaginal symptoms. Clinical diagnoses were made by research staff using a standardized protocol of history, physical examination including pelvic examination, determination of vaginal pH, vaginal fluid amines test, and wet-prep microscopy. Vaginal fluid samples were obtained for DNA analysis. The research clinicians were blinded to the DNA results.
RESULTS: The participants described a presenting symptom of abnormal discharge (50%), itching/irritation (33%), malodor (10%), burning (4%), or others such as vulvar pain and vaginal discomfort. According to laboratory standard, there were 225 cases (42%) of bacterial vaginosis, 76 cases (14%) of candidiasis vaginitis, 8 cases (1.5%) of trichomoniasis vaginalis, 87 cases of mixed infections (16%), and 139 negative cases (26%). For each single infection, the clinical diagnosis had a sensitivity and specificity of 80.8% and 70.0% for bacterial vaginosis, 83.8% and 84.8% for candidiasis vaginitis, and 84.6% and 99.6% for trichomoniasis vaginalis when compared with the DNA probe standard.
CONCLUSION: Compared with a DNA probe standard, clinical diagnosis is 81-85% sensitive and 70-99% specific for bacterial vaginosis, Candida vaginitis, and trichomoniasis. Even under research conditions that provided clinicians with sufficient time and materials to conduct a thorough and standardized clinical evaluation, the diagnosis and, therefore, subsequent treatment of these common vaginal problems remains difficult.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II.
METHODS: This prospective clinical comparative study had a sample of 535 active-duty United States military women presenting with vulvovaginal symptoms. Clinical diagnoses were made by research staff using a standardized protocol of history, physical examination including pelvic examination, determination of vaginal pH, vaginal fluid amines test, and wet-prep microscopy. Vaginal fluid samples were obtained for DNA analysis. The research clinicians were blinded to the DNA results.
RESULTS: The participants described a presenting symptom of abnormal discharge (50%), itching/irritation (33%), malodor (10%), burning (4%), or others such as vulvar pain and vaginal discomfort. According to laboratory standard, there were 225 cases (42%) of bacterial vaginosis, 76 cases (14%) of candidiasis vaginitis, 8 cases (1.5%) of trichomoniasis vaginalis, 87 cases of mixed infections (16%), and 139 negative cases (26%). For each single infection, the clinical diagnosis had a sensitivity and specificity of 80.8% and 70.0% for bacterial vaginosis, 83.8% and 84.8% for candidiasis vaginitis, and 84.6% and 99.6% for trichomoniasis vaginalis when compared with the DNA probe standard.
CONCLUSION: Compared with a DNA probe standard, clinical diagnosis is 81-85% sensitive and 70-99% specific for bacterial vaginosis, Candida vaginitis, and trichomoniasis. Even under research conditions that provided clinicians with sufficient time and materials to conduct a thorough and standardized clinical evaluation, the diagnosis and, therefore, subsequent treatment of these common vaginal problems remains difficult.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II.