ArticleBioMed research international2013
Comparison of Hay's criteria with Nugent's scoring system for diagnosis of bacterial vaginosis.
Article in BioMed research international, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 36 citations in OpenAlex.
- Intravaginal lactic acid gel versus oral metronidazole for treating women with recurrent bacterial vaginosis: the VITA randomised controlled trial.BMC women's health · 2023Trial
- Evaluation of the Hologic AptimaJournal of medical microbiology · 2026Article
- Evaluation of the Hologic Aptima Vaginitis assays for microbiological diagnosis of vaginitis in women with abnormal vaginal discharge attending primary care.Journal of medical microbiology · 2026Article
- State of the Art for Diagnosis of Bacterial Vaginosis.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2023Review
- Assessment of the Performance of the Aptima Bacterial Vaginosis Assay Over a 3-Month Period in a French Hospital.Microbiology spectrum · 2022Article
- HPV infection alters vaginal microbiome through down-regulating host mucosal innate peptides used by Lactobacilli as amino acid sources.Nature communications · 2022Article
- Finding a Balance in the Vaginal Microbiome: How Do We Treat and Prevent the Occurrence of Bacterial Vaginosis?Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Review
- Vaginal microbiota evaluation and prevalence of key pathogens in ecuadorian women: an epidemiologic analysis.Scientific reports · 2020Article
- Bacterial Vaginosis: Current Diagnostic Avenues and Future Opportunities.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2020Review
- Accuracy of the BD MAX™ vaginal panel in the diagnosis of infectious vaginitis.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2019Article
- Sensitive Detection of Thirteen Bacterial Vaginosis-Associated Agents Using Multiplex Polymerase Chain Reaction.BioMed research international · 2015Article
- Eponymous Signs in STIs.Indian journal of sexually transmitted diseases and AIDSArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Although Nugent's criterion is considered as the gold standard for the diagnosis of bacterial vaginosis (BV), the method requires an experienced slide reader and considerable time and skill. In this study, we compared the method of Hay and Ison with Nugent's scoring criteria. Vaginal specimens were collected from a total of 213 women, presenting with or without the symptoms of vaginitis. Diagnosis of BV was done using Nugent' and Hay's method. Sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values for positive and negative test were calculated for Hay's method using Nugent's method as the gold standard. We diagnosed 70 cases (32.86%) of BV by Nugent's method and 87 (40.85%) cases by the Hay's method. Sensitivity, specificity, predictive value of positive result, predictive value of negative result, and Kappa value when evaluating Hay's criteria using Nugent's criteria as the gold standard were ≥97.2%, ≥88.1%, ≥80.4%, ≥97.1%, and ≥0.830, respectively, when Hay's grade II and/or Nugent's intermediate score were considered either as negative or positive or excluded. Using Nugent score for the intermediate group is the most difficult. Hay's method shows good agreement with the gold standard method of Nugent et al. and can be used as an alternative to Nugent's criteria in busy tertiary care hospitals.
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.