ArticlePathogens (Basel, Switzerland)2021
Screening for Vaginal and Endocervical Infections in the First Trimester of Pregnancy? A Study That Ignites an Old Debate.
Article in Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Vulvovaginal yeast infections during pregnancy and perinatal outcomes: systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC women's health · 2023Pooled it
- Prevalence ofEpidemiology and infection · 2025Article
- Primary prevention with vaginal chlorhexidine before 16 weeks reduces the incidence of preterm birth: results of the Preterm Labor Prevention Using Vaginal Antiseptics study.AJOG global reports · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesVaginal and endocervical infections are considered a global health problem, especially after recent evidence of their association with preterm delivery and other adverse obstetric outcomes. Still, there is no consensus on the efficacy of a screening strategy for these infections in the first trimester of pregnancy. This study evaluated their prevalence and whether screening and treatment resulted as effective in reducing pregnancy and perinatal complications.
methodsA single-center prospective observational study was designed; a sample size of 400 first-trimester pregnant women was established and they were recruited between March 2016-October 2019 at the Puerta de Hierro University Hospital (Spain). They were screened for vaginal and endocervical infections and treated in case of abnormal flora. Pregnancy and delivery outcomes were compared between abnormal and normal flora groups by univariate analysis.
results109 patients had an abnormal flora result (27.2%). The most frequently detected infection was
conclusionsConsidering the morbimortality related to prematurity and that the results of our study suggest that the early treatment of abnormal flora could improve perinatal outcomes, the implementation of a screening program during the first trimester should be considered.
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.