ArticleThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners2017
Self-taken vaginal swabs versus clinician-taken for detection of candida and bacterial vaginosis: a case-control study in primary care.
Article in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05806879 (The Impact of Using Maternity Napkins on the Incidence of Vaginal Infections in the Post-partum Period), which is not on this map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
The Impact of Using Maternity Napkins on the Incidence of Vaginal Infections in the Post-partum Period: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effect of menstrual cups on vaginal health, reproductive tract and urogenital infections: a systematic review and meta-analysis.EBioMedicine · 2026Pooled it
- Updates on Testing, Treatment, and Prevention of Sexually Transmitted Infections in the United States, 2025.Topics in antiviral medicine · 2025Review
- A decade of clinical microbiology: top 10 advances in 10 years: what every infection preventionist and antimicrobial steward should know.Antimicrobial stewardship & healthcare epidemiology : ASHE · 2024Review
- Evolution of Specimen Self-Collection in the COVID-19 Era: Implications for Population Health Management of Infectious Disease.Population health management · 2021Review
- Acceptability and efficacy of vaginal self-sampling for genital infection and bacterial vaginosis: A cross-sectional study.PloS one · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundVaginal discharge and vulvitis are common presenting symptoms in general practice. Few studies have specifically looked at the validity of self-taken low vulvovaginal swabs (LVS) for the diagnosis of vulvovaginal candidiasis (VVC) and bacterial vaginosis (BV).
aimTo assess if patient self-taken LVS are a valid alternative to clinician-taken high vaginal swabs (HVS) for the detection of VVC and BV. DESIGN AND
settingCase-control study with the patient acting as their own control in an urban sexual health centre in Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
methodFemales aged 16-65 years attending with symptomatic vaginal discharge, vulval irritation, genital pain, and an offensive genital smell were recruited into the study. Participants took a self-taken LVS before vaginal examination, during which a clinician took an HVS (reference standard). Main outcome measures were the diagnosis of BV or VVC infection.
resultsA total of 104 females were enrolled. Of those, 45 were diagnosed with VVC and 26 with BV. The sensitivities of self-taken LVS for VVC and BV were 95.5% and 88.5% respectively. Cohen's κ coefficient showed 'strong agreement' for the detection of both VVC and BV. Vulval itching was the most common symptom associated with VVC (69%), whereas 50% of females diagnosed with BV presented with an offensive discharge. Both symptoms had poor positive predictive values (0.63 and 0.50, respectively).
conclusionSelf-taken LVS appears to be a valid alternative to clinician-taken HVS for detecting VVC and BV infections. Symptoms were found to be a poor indicator of underlying infection.
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.