ArticleEuropean journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology2020
Diagnostic performance of two molecular assays for the detection of vaginitis in symptomatic women.
Article in European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparing BD Affirm VPIII to Xpert Xpress MVP and BD MAX Vaginal Panel for the diagnosis of vaginal infections.Microbiology spectrum · 2026Article
- Evaluation of the Hologic Aptima Vaginitis assays for microbiological diagnosis of vaginitis in women with abnormal vaginal discharge attending primary care.Journal of medical microbiology · 2026Article
- Non-Frontiers in microbiology · 2026Review
- Evaluation of SAT-Candida: a rapid RNA-based isothermal amplification assay for detection and identification of Candida spp. in vaginal specimens.Annals of clinical microbiology and antimicrobials · 2025Article
- Bacterial vaginosis.Nature reviews. Disease primers · 2025Review
- Rapid Molecular Diagnostics in Vulvovaginal Candidosis.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Evaluating the epidemiology of vaginitis in a contemporary cohort: a population-based study.Frontiers in public health · 2024Article
- Article
- Diagnostic performance of DNA probe-based and PCR-based molecular vaginitis testing.Microbiology spectrum · 2023Article
- Clinical Evaluation of Polymerase Chain Reaction Coupled with Quantum Dot Fluorescence Analysis for Diagnosis ofInfection and drug resistance · 2023Article
- Recent advances in cultivation-independent molecular-based techniques for the characterization of vaginal eubiosis and dysbiosis.Faculty reviews · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The three main causes of vaginitis are bacterial vaginosis (BV), vulvovaginal candidiasis (VVC), and trichomoniasis (TV). Two multiplex assays are commercially available for detection of DNA from organisms associated with vaginitis: BD Affirm™ VPIII Microbial Identification Test (Affirm) and BD MAX™ Vaginal Panel (MAX VP). Here, the performance of MAX VP was compared to that of Affirm, which was considered the standard of care. Four vaginal swabs were collected from each subject with the following: BD Affirm™ VPIII Ambient Temperature Transport System (ATTS), BD MAX™ UVE Specimen Collection Kit, Hologic Aptima® Vaginal Swab Specimen Collection Kit, and BD ESwab™ collection and transport system (ESwab). Candida culture, Gram stain followed by Nugent scoring, and the Hologic Aptima® Trichomonas vaginalis assay were used for discordant analysis. Results were considered true positive if there were at least two tests positive for any vaginitis target. A total of 200 symptomatic women were evaluated in the study. The sensitivity and specificity of MAX VP for BV was 96.2% and 96.1%, respectively, compared to 96.2% and 81.6% for Affirm. The sensitivity and specificity of MAX VP for Candida spp. was 98.4% and 95.4%, respectively, compared to 69.4% and 100% for Affirm. MAX VP and Affirm showed 100% concordance for detection of TV. These results demonstrate improved accuracy of MAX VP compared to Affirm for the detection of BV and Candida spp. and no difference for detection of TV between the two tests.
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.