Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30290831›Full record

ArticleBMC research notes2018

Evaluation of patient- versus provider-collected vaginal swabs for microbiome analysis during pregnancy.

Kristine M Wylie, Stephanie A Blankenship, Methodius G Tuuli, George A Macones, Molly J Stout

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC research notes, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 27% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Performance evaluation and acceptability of point-of-careInternational journal of STD & AIDS · 2020
    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 2 institutions in 1 country.

Kristine M WylieDepartment of Pediatrics, Washington University School in St. Louis School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA.
Stephanie A BlankenshipDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Washington University in St. Louis School of Medicine, 660 S. Euclid, Box 8064, St. Louis, MO, 63110, USA.
Methodius G TuuliDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Washington University in St. Louis School of Medicine, 660 S. Euclid, Box 8064, St. Louis, MO, 63110, USA.
George A MaconesDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Washington University in St. Louis School of Medicine, 660 S. Euclid, Box 8064, St. Louis, MO, 63110, USA.
Molly J StoutDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Washington University in St. Louis School of Medicine, 660 S. Euclid, Box 8064, St. Louis, MO, 63110, USA. mollystout@wustl.edu.
Washington University in St. Louis · USJames S. McDonnell Foundation · US

Funding

WU INSTITUTE OF CLINICAL AND TRANSLATIONAL SCIENCESUL1TR002345 · NCATS · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI William G. Powderly · 2017 to 2026
$97.8M
Washington University Institute of Clinical and Translational SciencesUL1TR000448 · NCATS · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI EVANOFF, BRADLEY A · 2012 to 2016
$41.4M
Women's Reproductive Health Research Career Development Program at W.U., St LouisK12HD063086 · NICHD · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI MACONES, GEORGE A · 2009 to 2013
$2.6M
Reproductive Epidemiology Training Program at Washington University in St. LouisT32HD055172 · NICHD · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI MADDEN, TESSA · 2009 to 2018
$2.5M
March of Dimes Foundation March of Dimes Prematurity Research Center at Washington University in St. LouisNCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR000448NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR002345NICHD NIH HHS K12 HD063086NICHD NIH HHS T32 HD055172
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveWe aimed to evaluate if patient- and provider-collected vaginal swabs in pregnant women reflect similar bacterial community characteristics. Pregnant patients performed a self-collected vaginal swab, then underwent a provider-collected swab via speculum exam. DNA pyrosequencing of the 16S rRNA gene V1V3 and V3V5 variable regions was performed. Relative abundance of taxa, alpha diversity, and beta diversity of patient- and provider-collected swabs were compared.

resultsNinety-four vaginal swabs from 47 women were analyzed. On non-metric multi-dimensional scaling plots, paired patient- and provider-collected swabs clustered closely. The median Pearson correlation coefficient was 0.993 (interquartile range 0.951-0.999) for V1V3 and 0.987 (interquartile range 0.902-0.999) for V3V5. Among paired V1V3 and V3V5 sequences, 83.0% and 73.9% showed strong Pearson correlation (> 0.9), respectively, between patient- and provider-collected swabs; V1V3 and V3V5 sequences with weaker Pearson correlation (< 0.9) had correlation coefficients 0.57-0.89 and 0.49-0.89, respectively. No taxa were preferentially detected by sampling method, with relative abundance of taxa highly conserved. No significant difference in Shannon diversity for V1V3 (p = 0.22) and V3V5 (p = 0.11) sequences among paired samples was seen. We demonstrate that bacterial communities defined from patient- and provider-collected vaginal swabs in pregnant women are similar, validating utilization of patient-collected swabs for vaginal bacterial microbiome sampling during pregnancy.

Indexed as

MicrobiotaCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHealth PersonnelHumansPregnancyRNA, Ribosomal, 16SSelf-ExaminationSequence Analysis, DNAVaginaVaginal SmearsRNA, Ribosomal, 16S16S rRNAPatient-collected samplePregnancyVaginal microbiome

Identifiers

PMID30290831
PMCPMC6173906
OpenAlexW2894980642

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.