ReviewJournal of family & reproductive health2022
Challenging Vaginal Discharge, Lactobacillosis and Cytolytic Vaginitis.
Review in Journal of family & reproductive health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Old but gold: an historical perspective of wet mount microscopy and its current role for the diagnosis of vaginitis.Frontiers in reproductive health · 2026Review
- The impact of fluconazole use on the fungal and bacterial microbiomes in recurrent Vulvovaginal Candidiasis (RVVC): a pilot study of vaginal and gastrointestinal site interplay.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2025Article
- Blue light-emitting diode therapy for recurrent vulvovaginal candidiasis: a Brazilian report.Lasers in medical science · 2025Article
- Genetic association between human skin microbiota with vaginitis: a two-sample Mendelian randomization study.Archives of dermatological research · 2025Article
- Lactobacilli and Their Probiotic Effects in the Vagina of Reproductive Age Women.Microorganisms · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In women's health, clinicians are often faced with diagnosing and administering treatment to patients who present with an increased vaginal discharge without much other information to work with. It's only once a patient's background is reviewed and lab work is completed that two common reasons behind vaginal discharge with similar symptoms, Lactobacillosis and Cytolytic Vaginitis, can be differentiated and a proper diagnosis can be reached. Now, we understand that Lactobacillosis and Cytolytic Vaginitis are symptomatically confused by patients as well as inexperienced clinicians. Lactobacillosis involves the presence of abnormal, extremely long Lactobacilli, a keystone species for vaginal health, while Cytolytic Vaginitis mainly involves, increased Lactobacilli, pH between 3.5 and 4.5, presence of cytolysis, and a lowered white blood cell count. Both present with similar discharge, leading to their conflation. A microscopic examination of the discharge using a wet mount with normal saline can provide 80% diagnostic sensitivity until further testing can be completed.
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.