Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31462459›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2019

Evaluation of reliability of self-collected vaginal swabs over physician-collected samples for diagnosis of bacterial vaginosis, candidiasis and trichomoniasis, in a resource-limited setting: a cross-sectional study in India.

Zarine Khan, Aradhana Bhargava, Pratima Mittal, Rekha Bharti, Poonam Puri, Niti Khunger, Manju Bala

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.5field-weighted citation impact, top 12% 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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 35 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Recent Advances in Presentation, Diagnosis and Treatment for Mixed Vaginitis.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2021
    Review
  17. 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

7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Zarine KhanDepartment of Microbiology, VMMC & Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi, India.
Aradhana BhargavaApex Regional STI Training, Research & Reference Laboratory, VMMC and Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi, India.
Pratima MittalDepartment of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, VMMC & Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi, India.
Rekha BhartiDepartment of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, VMMC & Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi, India.
Poonam PuriDepartment of Dermatology & STD, VMMC and Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi, India.
Niti KhungerDepartment of Dermatology & STD, VMMC and Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi, India.
Manju BalaApex Regional STI Training, Research & Reference Laboratory, VMMC and Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi, India manjubala_2@hotmail.com.ORCID 0000-0003-3255-2195
Safdarjang Hospital · IN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesSelf-collected vaginal swabs can facilitate diagnosis of vaginal discharge (VD) in resource-limited settings, provided reliability of the method is established. The aim of this study was to evaluate the concordance between self-collected and physician-collected vaginal swabs for aetiological diagnosis of VD and to determine the prevalence of bacterial vaginosis (BV), vulvovaginal candidiasis (VVC) and trichomonas vaginitis (TV).

methodsA total of 550 females (median age: 32 years; range: 18-45 years) attending two sexually transmitted infection/reproductive tract infection (STI/RTI) clinics with VD from January 2015 to May 2016 were included in the study after obtaining written informed consent. Swabs were self-collected by patients after instructions and subsequently by a physician under speculum examination. Samples were processed for standard bedside tests, Gram staining, wet mount and culture (gold standard) according to the national guidelines. Concordance between the two methods was determined by the Cohen's kappa value.

resultsBV, VVC and TV were diagnosed in 79 (14.4%), 144 (26.2%) and 3 (0.5%) patients, respectively. VVC coexisted with BV in 58 (10.5%) patients. There was no coinfection of TV with BV or VVC.

conclusionThe comparative performance of self-collected and physician-collected vaginal swabs establishes self-collection of samples for BV, VVC and TV as a viable alternative tool in the management of STIs/RTIs, especially in peripheral and resource-constrained settings. This would be effective in implementing the diagnostic approaches for STIs/RTIs in community-based surveillance studies at national or regional level and therefore strengthening the National STI/RTI Control Programme.

Indexed as

Self CareAdolescentAdultAge FactorsCandidiasis, VulvovaginalCross-Sectional StudiesDeveloping CountriesFemaleHumansIndiaMiddle AgedPrevalenceReproducibility of ResultsTrichomonas VaginitisVaginal SmearsVaginosis, Bacterialbacterial vaginosisphysician-collected vaginal swabstrichomonas vaginitis, self-collected vaginal swabsVaginal dischargevulvovaginal candidiasis

Identifiers

PMID31462459
PMCPMC6719764
OpenAlexW2970571915

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.