Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29158246›Full record

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.

Pam Barnes, Rute Vieira, Jayne Harwood, Mayur Chauhan

Registry-linked trialOpen access · bronzeAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 34% 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.

NCT05806879 naunknown statusnot on this mapstarted 2023, after this paper: background citation

The Impact of Using Maternity Napkins on the Incidence of Vaginal Infections in the Post-partum Period: A Randomized Controlled Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorAga Khan UniversityRan2023 to 2024Enrolled350ConditionsVaginal InfectionArmsMaternity Napkin
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. 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

4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Pam BarnesNew Croft Centre for Sexual Health, Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals, NHS Foundation Trust, Newcastle upon Tyne.
Rute VieiraInstitute of Health and Society, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne.
Jayne HarwoodMicrobiology Department, Freeman Hospital, Newcastle upon Tyne.
Mayur ChauhanNew Croft Centre for Sexual Health, Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals, NHS Foundation Trust, Newcastle upon Tyne.
Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust · GBFreeman Hospital · GBNewcastle University · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Primary Health CareSelf CareVaginal SmearsAdolescentAdultBacteriological TechniquesCandidiasis, VulvovaginalCase-Control StudiesFemaleHumansMiddle AgedPractice Guidelines as TopicPredictive Value of TestsSpecimen HandlingUnited KingdomVaginabacterial vaginosisgeneral practicevaginal examinationsvulvovaginal candidiasis

Identifiers

PMID29158246
PMCPMC5697552
OpenAlexW2769884974

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.