Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33462893›Full record

ArticleBirth (Berkeley, Calif.)2021

HIV infection as a risk factor for vaginal dysbiosis, bacterial vaginosis, and candidosis in pregnancy: A matched case-control study.

Philipp Foessleitner, Ljubomir Petricevic, Isabell Boerger, Irene Steiner, Herbert Kiss, Armin Rieger, Veronique Touzeau-Roemer, Alex Farr

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Birth (Berkeley, Calif.), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.1field-weighted citation impact, top 13% 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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 23 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. A Comprehensive Overview ofJournal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Prevalence and Risk Factors of Vulvovaginal Candidosis during Pregnancy: A Review.Infectious diseases in obstetrics and gynecology · 2022
    Review
  17. Article
  18. Validation of theJournal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021
    Article
  19. 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

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Philipp FoessleitnerDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Obstetrics and Feto-maternal Medicine, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.ORCID 0000-0002-8409-1119
Ljubomir PetricevicDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Obstetrics and Feto-maternal Medicine, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Isabell BoergerDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Obstetrics and Feto-maternal Medicine, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Irene SteinerCenter for Medical Statistics, Informatics and Intelligent Systems (IMS), Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Herbert KissDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Obstetrics and Feto-maternal Medicine, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Armin RiegerDepartment of Dermatology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Veronique Touzeau-RoemerDepartment of Dermatology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Alex FarrDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Obstetrics and Feto-maternal Medicine, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.ORCID 0000-0002-4628-9052
Medical University of Vienna · ATStatistics Austria · AT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThis study aimed to evaluate the vaginal microbiota of HIV-positive pregnant women relative to HIV-negative controls, and to compare their risk of vaginal dysbiosis, bacterial vaginosis, and vulvovaginal candidosis (VVC).

methodsThis is a nested matched case-control study that analyzed data from women who received pregnancy care at our center from 2003 to 2014. Women routinely underwent screening for asymptomatic vaginal infections using phase microscopy on Gram-stained smears. HIV-positive women were assigned to the case group, and HIV-negative women were assigned to the control group. Cases and controls were matched in a 1:4 ratio. Logistic regression was used to test whether HIV infection was associated with vaginal dysbiosis (Nugent score 4-6), BV (Nugent score 7-10), or VVC.

resultsOne hundred and twenty-seven women were assigned to the case group, and 4290 were assigned to the control group (including 508 matched controls). Dysbiosis or BV was found in 29.9% of the cases and 17.6% of the controls. Women in the case group had increased risk of vaginal dysbiosis or BV (odds ratio [OR] 2.09, 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.30-3.32, P = .002). The risk of VVC was also higher in the case group (OR 2.14, 95% CI, 1.22-3.77, P = .008). The incidence of preterm birth did not differ significantly between the groups (cases: 8.7%; controls: 10%, P = .887).

conclusionsHIV-positive women are at risk of vaginal dysbiosis, BV, and VVC during pregnancy. As imbalances of the vaginal microbiota can lead to preterm birth, screening and treatment of HIV-positive pregnant women are warranted.

Indexed as

HIV InfectionsPremature BirthVaginosis, BacterialCase-Control StudiesDysbiosisFemaleHumansInfant, NewbornPregnancyRisk Factorsantenatal carebacterial vaginosisCandidaHIV/AIDSpregnancy

Identifiers

PMID33462893
PMCPMC8247846
OpenAlexW3125353058

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.