Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33110095›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2020

Vaginal microbiota evaluation and prevalence of key pathogens in ecuadorian women: an epidemiologic analysis.

Ana María Salinas, Verónica Gabriela Osorio, David Pacha-Herrera, Juan S Vivanco, Ana Francisca Trueba, António Machado

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 35 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
35citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
3.8field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

35 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 56 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Impact of Biofilm Formation by VaginalJournal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2025
    Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2024
    Article
  19. Review
  20. 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

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Ana María SalinasInstituto de Microbiología, Colegio de Ciencias Biológicas y Ambientales (COCIBA), Universidad San Francisco de Quito (USFQ), Diego de Robles y Vía Interoceánica, Campus Cumbayá, Casilla Postal 17-1200-841, Quito, 170901, Ecuador.
Verónica Gabriela OsorioInstituto de Microbiología, Colegio de Ciencias Biológicas y Ambientales (COCIBA), Universidad San Francisco de Quito (USFQ), Diego de Robles y Vía Interoceánica, Campus Cumbayá, Casilla Postal 17-1200-841, Quito, 170901, Ecuador.
David Pacha-HerreraInstituto de Microbiología, Colegio de Ciencias Biológicas y Ambientales (COCIBA), Universidad San Francisco de Quito (USFQ), Diego de Robles y Vía Interoceánica, Campus Cumbayá, Casilla Postal 17-1200-841, Quito, 170901, Ecuador.
Juan S VivancoInstituto de Microbiología, Colegio de Ciencias Biológicas y Ambientales (COCIBA), Universidad San Francisco de Quito (USFQ), Diego de Robles y Vía Interoceánica, Campus Cumbayá, Casilla Postal 17-1200-841, Quito, 170901, Ecuador.
Ana Francisca TruebaBrain and Behavior Laboratory, Colegio de Ciencias de la Salud, Universidad San Francisco de Quito (USFQ), Diego de Robles y Vía Interoceánica, Campus Cumbayá, Casilla Postal 17-1200-841, Quito, 170901, Ecuador.
António MachadoInstituto de Microbiología, Colegio de Ciencias Biológicas y Ambientales (COCIBA), Universidad San Francisco de Quito (USFQ), Diego de Robles y Vía Interoceánica, Campus Cumbayá, Casilla Postal 17-1200-841, Quito, 170901, Ecuador. amachado@usfq.edu.ec.
Universidad San Francisco de Quito · EC

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Vaginal infection is a gynecological problem in women of reproductive age with multiple health outcomes. The most common forms of infection include bacterial vaginosis (BV), vulvovaginal candidiasis (VC), and aerobic vaginitis (AV). Our main goals were to evaluate different types of vaginal infections in Ecuadorian women in a large urban area (Quito) and to characterize the vaginal microbiota colonization by opportunistic species. We collected vaginal swabs and epidemiological surveys from 414 women from June 2016 to July of 2017. We analyzed vaginal samples for the presence of any vaginal infection. The microbiological examination was done through Gram-stain, wet mount smears, and polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assays using primers for target genes, such as 16S rRNA (Atopobium vaginae, Mobiluncus mulieris, and Gardnerella species), ddl (Enterococcus faecalis), adk (Escherichia coli) and KER1 (Candida albicans) genes. Most women showed a healthy vaginal microbiota (66.7%). Nearly one-tenth (10.4%) of the participants had intermediate microbiota, and the remaining women (22.9%) had a single vaginal infection (BV, AV, or VC) or coinfections. From the 95 participants that had an infection, AV was the main diagnosed vaginal infection (51.6%), followed by BV (24.2%) and finally VC (7.4%). The remaining women (16.8%) showed coinfections, being BV and AV the most common coinfection. Using univariable logistic regression analyses we found an increased odds of healthy microbiota in women with a sexual partner (P = 0.02, OR = 1.64). Also, women in a free union relationship (P = 0.000, OR = 16.65) had an increased odds of having coinfections. On the other hand, the use of birth control (condom OR = 0.388 or other contraceptive method OR = 0.363) was associated with significantly lower odds of intermediate microbiota (P ≤ 0.05). We found no statistically significant differences between women with infection and a particular group age. Using multivariate logistic regression analyses we initially found an increased odds of having BV in women with M. mulieris (P = 0.020, OR = 4.98) and Gardnerella species (P = 0.010, OR = 4.16). Women with E. coli showed an increased odds of having AV (P = 0.009, OR = 2.81). The presence of C. albicans in women showed an increased odds of having VC (P = 0.007, OR = 17.94). Finally, women with M. mulieris showed a reverse odds of having healthy microbiota (P = 0.008, OR = 0.06). We found no statistically significant differences between women with symptomatic and asymptomatic infections or the presence of Enterococcus faecalis. We found using logistic regression analyses that M. mulieris was the most prevalent opportunistic pathogen among women with vaginal infection. Further studies should evaluate the possibility to use M. mulieris as a potential key predictor for vaginal infections.

Indexed as

MicrobiotaAdultAge FactorsCandidiasis, VulvovaginalEcuadorFemaleHumansMiddle AgedPrevalenceRisk FactorsVaginaVaginal DiseasesVaginosis, BacterialYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID33110095
PMCPMC7591572
OpenAlexW3094837166

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.