Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34793548›Full record

ArticlePloS one2021

Acceptability and efficacy of vaginal self-sampling for genital infection and bacterial vaginosis: A cross-sectional study.

Claire Camus, Guillaume Penaranda, Hacène Khiri, Sabine Camiade, Lucie Molet, Melissa Lebsir, Anne Plauzolles, Laurent Chiche, Bernard Blanc, Edwin Quarello and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Bacterial Vaginosis: What Do We Currently Know?Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2021
    Review
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

11 authors.

Claire CamusClinical Research and R&D Department, Laboratoire Européen, Alphabio - Biogroup, Marseille, France.
Guillaume PenarandaClinical Research and R&D Department, Laboratoire Européen, Alphabio - Biogroup, Marseille, France.ORCID 0000-0002-7461-4254
Hacène KhiriClinical Research and R&D Department, Laboratoire Européen, Alphabio - Biogroup, Marseille, France.
Sabine CamiadeBacteriology Department, Laboratoire Européen Alphabio - Biogroup, Marseille, France.
Lucie MoletClinical Research and R&D Department, Laboratoire Européen, Alphabio - Biogroup, Marseille, France.
Melissa LebsirBacteriology Department, Laboratoire Européen Alphabio - Biogroup, Marseille, France.
Anne PlauzollesClinical Research and R&D Department, Laboratoire Européen, Alphabio - Biogroup, Marseille, France.
Laurent ChicheInfectious and Internal Medicine Department, Hôpital Européen Marseille, Marseille, France.
Bernard BlancGynecology Department, Hôpital Européen Marseille, Marseille, France.
Edwin QuarelloPrenatal Screening and Diagnostic Unit, Obstetrics and Gynecology Department, St Joseph Hospital, Marseille, France.
Philippe HalfonClinical Research and R&D Department, Laboratoire Européen, Alphabio - Biogroup, Marseille, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND &

aimScreening for genital infection (GI) such as bacterial vaginosis (BV) and yeast infection, for sexually transmitted infection (STI), and for asymptomatic carriage of group B streptococcus (GBS) in pregnant women are common reason for medical appointments. The diagnosis and control of GIs, STIs, and GBS are major issues, for fertility and overall well-being of affected women. Conventional testing is performed using vaginal/cervical classical sampling (VCS); this procedure requires pelvic examination performed by health care professionals which raises concerns among women. Vaginal-self-sampling (VSS), as an alternative to VCS, might capture more women. The aim was first to show non-inferiority of VSS compared with VCS to screen for GIs, STIs, and GBS; second to determine the feasibility of VSS.

methodsVSS and VCS from 1027 women were collected by health care professionals and simultaneously carried out on each patient. GIs, STIs, and GBS were systematically screened in both paired VSS and VCS samples. Non-inferiority of VSS compared with VCS was assessed using z statistic for binomial proportions.

resultsPrevalence of GIs were 39.7% using VSS and 38.1% using VCS (p = 0.0016). Prevalence of STIs was 8.5% (VSS) vs 8.1% (VCS) (p = 0.0087). Prevalence of GBS was 13.4% (VSS) and 11.5% (VCS) (p = 0.0001). Most participants (84%) recommended the use of VSS.

conclusionsThis study shows that VSS was not inferior to VCS for the detection of GIs, STIs, and GBS. This study provides evidence that VSS can be used as a universal specimen for detection of lower genital tract infections in women. STUDY IDENTIFICATION NUMBER: ID-RCB 2014-A01250-4.

Indexed as

AdultCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleFranceGenitaliaHumansMass ScreeningPatient Acceptance of Health CareSelf-TestingSpecimen HandlingUrinary Tract InfectionsVaginal DiseasesVaginosis, Bacterial

Identifiers

PMID34793548
PMCPMC8601421

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.