Maternal and child health journal · 2007
Relative performance of three methods for diagnosing bacterial vaginosis during pregnancy.
Оценочное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание 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.
Hogan Vijaya K, Culhane Jennifer F, Hitti Jane, Rauh Virginia A, McCollum Kelly F, Agnew Kathy J
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: This study measures the relative performance of three methods for diagnosing bacterial vaginosis (BV) during pregnancy and assesses the implications of measurement for clinical practice and surveillance.
METHODS: A sample (n = 1,780) of English or Spanish speaking women, with a singleton intrauterine pregnancy and receiving prenatal care at a consortium of public health centers in Philadelphia were consecutively enrolled. Gram stain, clinician's diagnosis, and a commercial test were the three diagnostic methods used to assess BV. Sensitivity, specificity, and the positive and negative predictive values of clinical diagnosis and the commercial test were assessed using the gram stain/Nugent score as a gold standard.
RESULTS: The prevalence of BV, measured on the same population, differed considerably depending on the diagnostic test used. The measured prevalences were 55% (Gram stain), 28.5% (clinician's diagnosis), and 12.6% (commercial test). The prevalence of BV (diagnosed by gram stain) was twice as high among African American women compared to White women. Only 69% BV-positive high-risk women were treated for BV.
CONCLUSIONS: Inaccurate diagnosis of BV leads to missed cases. The identification of true cases is critical for assigning treatment and for assessing treatment effectiveness. Clinician's routine diagnosis fell short of recommended procedures and performed poorly compared to gold standard in case ascertainment. This inability to ascertain cases may have an impact on our ability to prevent preterm birth.
METHODS: A sample (n = 1,780) of English or Spanish speaking women, with a singleton intrauterine pregnancy and receiving prenatal care at a consortium of public health centers in Philadelphia were consecutively enrolled. Gram stain, clinician's diagnosis, and a commercial test were the three diagnostic methods used to assess BV. Sensitivity, specificity, and the positive and negative predictive values of clinical diagnosis and the commercial test were assessed using the gram stain/Nugent score as a gold standard.
RESULTS: The prevalence of BV, measured on the same population, differed considerably depending on the diagnostic test used. The measured prevalences were 55% (Gram stain), 28.5% (clinician's diagnosis), and 12.6% (commercial test). The prevalence of BV (diagnosed by gram stain) was twice as high among African American women compared to White women. Only 69% BV-positive high-risk women were treated for BV.
CONCLUSIONS: Inaccurate diagnosis of BV leads to missed cases. The identification of true cases is critical for assigning treatment and for assessing treatment effectiveness. Clinician's routine diagnosis fell short of recommended procedures and performed poorly compared to gold standard in case ascertainment. This inability to ascertain cases may have an impact on our ability to prevent preterm birth.
Предметные рубрики MeSH
AdultBlack or African AmericanAmbulatory Care FacilitiesClinical CompetenceCross-Sectional StudiesDiagnostic ErrorsFemaleGentian VioletHumansMicroscopyOdds RatioPhenazinesPhiladelphiaPregnancyPregnancy Complications, InfectiousPrenatal DiagnosisPrevalenceReagent Kits, DiagnosticSensitivity and SpecificityVaginal SmearsVaginosis, BacterialWhite People