ArticleSexually transmitted infections2004
How is the high vaginal swab used to investigate vaginal discharge in primary care and how do GPs' expectations of the test match the tests performed by their microbiology services?
Article in Sexually transmitted infections, 2004. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- The prevalence and risk factors of vaginal Candida species and group B Streptococcus colonization in pregnant women attending antenatal care at Hawassa university comprehensive specialized hospital in Hawassa City, Southern Ethiopia.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2025Article
- Self-taken vaginal swabs versus clinician-taken for detection of candida and bacterial vaginosis: a case-control study in primary care.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2017Article
- Yeast Infection and Diabetes Mellitus among Pregnant Mother in Malaysia.The Malaysian journal of medical sciences : MJMS · 2016Article
- Sexual health problems managed in Australian general practice: a national, cross sectional survey.Sexually transmitted infections · 2006Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo describe the management of vaginal discharge in general practice, with particular regard to the use of the high vaginal swab (HVS), and to compare GPs' expectations of this test with the processing and reporting undertaken by different laboratories.
methodsA postal questionnaire survey of 2146 GPs in the North Thames area and postal questionnaire study of the 22 laboratories serving the same GPs were carried out. GPs were asked how they would manage a young woman with vaginal discharge and what information they would like on an HVS report. Laboratories were asked how they would process and report on the HVS sample from the same patient.
resultsResponse rate was 26%. 72% of GPs would take an HVS and 62% would refer on to a genitourinary medicine (GUM) clinic. 45% would offer empirical therapy and 47% of these would treat for candida initially. 75% of GPs routinely request "M,C&S" on HVS samples but 55% only want to be informed about specific pathogens. Routine processing of HVS samples varies widely between laboratories and 86% only report specific pathogens. 78% of GPs would like to be offered a suggested diagnosis on HVS reports, and 74% would like a suggested treatment. 43% of laboratories ever provide a diagnosis, and 14% provide a suggested treatment.
conclusionsGPs frequently manage vaginal discharge and most of them utilise the HVS. GPs' expectations of the test are not well matched to laboratory processing or reporting of the samples.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.