Evidence map›Paper›PMID 17274857›Full record

ArticleEpidemiology and infection2007

Vaginal symptoms and bacterial vaginosis (BV): how useful is self-report? Development of a screening tool for predicting BV status.

D B Nelson, S Bellamy, A Odibo, I Nachamkin, R B Ness, L Allen-Taylor

Open access · bronzeAbstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Epidemiology and infection, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 29% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed, 27 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

D B NelsonDepartment of Public Health and Ob/Gyn, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA 19122, USA. dnelson@temple.edu
S Bellamy
A Odibo
I Nachamkin
R B Ness
L Allen-Taylor
University of Pennsylvania · USTemple University Health System · USUniversity of Pittsburgh · USWashington University in St. Louis · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Vaginal complaints compel an evaluation of bacterial vaginosis (BV), however, many cases of BV are asymptomatic. We evaluated the sensitivity and specificity of vaginal symptoms in the diagnosis of BV and examined the utility of creating a BV screening tool using clinical, behavioural and demographic characteristics. A total of 1916 pregnant women were included in this analysis. In total, 757 women screened positive for BV and over one third of BV-positive women presented without any lower genital tract symptoms (39.4%). African American race, abnormal vaginal odour, and smoking were independently related to BV positivity. A BV screening tool including these three factors was fairly predictive of BV status with the area under the ROC curve equal to 0.669. This three-item prediction rule may be useful in identifying high- risk pregnant women in need of BV screening and, given the high specificity, accurately identify the group of BV-negative pregnant women.

Indexed as

AdultEthnicityFemaleHumansMass ScreeningOdorantsPregnancyPregnancy Complications, InfectiousRisk FactorsSensitivity and SpecificitySmokingVaginosis, Bacterial

Identifiers

PMID17274857
PMCPMC2870698
OpenAlexW2134931724

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.