Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28875084›Full record

ArticlePeerJ2017

Prevalence of bacterial vaginosis in Portuguese pregnant women and vaginal colonization by

Daniela Machado, Joana Castro, José Martinez-de-Oliveira, Cristina Nogueira-Silva, Nuno Cerca

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PeerJ, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 23% 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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 22 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Prevalence of Bacterial Vaginosis of Pregnant Women in the General Hospital Tesanj.Medical archives (Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina) · 2025
    Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Editorial: Vaginal dysbiosis and biofilms.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2022
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. 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

5 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Daniela MachadoCentre of Biological Engineering (CEB), Laboratory of Research in Biofilms Rosário Oliveira (LIBRO), University of Minho, Braga, Portugal.
Joana CastroCentre of Biological Engineering (CEB), Laboratory of Research in Biofilms Rosário Oliveira (LIBRO), University of Minho, Braga, Portugal.
José Martinez-de-OliveiraWomen & Child Health Department, Centro Hospitalar Cova da Beira EPE, Covilhã, Portugal.
Cristina Nogueira-SilvaDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Hospital de Braga, Braga, Portugal.
Nuno CercaCentre of Biological Engineering (CEB), Laboratory of Research in Biofilms Rosário Oliveira (LIBRO), University of Minho, Braga, Portugal.
University of Minho · PTHospital Braga · PTUniversidade do Porto · PTUniversity of Beira Interior · PT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWe aimed to determine the prevalence of vaginal colonization by

methodsA cross-sectional study was conducted among pregnant women aged ≥ 18 years who were attending in two public hospitals of the Northwest region of Portugal. Epidemiological data was collected by anonymous questionnaire. BV was diagnosed by Nugent criteria and

resultsThe prevalences of BV and of DISCUSSION: Despite the lower number of women with BV, prevalence ratios and association with risk factors were similar to recent European studies. However, the percentage of healthy women colonized by

Indexed as

Bacterial vaginosisGardnerella vaginalisPregnancyRisk factors

Identifiers

PMID28875084
PMCPMC5580382
OpenAlexW2752739998

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.