ArticlePloS one2022
Survey of healthcare providers' testing practices for vulvovaginal candidiasis and treatment outcomes-United States, 2021.
Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Real-World Ibrexafungerp Use Patterns Among Patients with Commercial Health Insurance, United States, 2021-2023.Drugs - real world outcomes · 2025Article
- Vulvovaginal candidiasis culture results from a major national commercial laboratory, United States, 2019-2023.American journal of obstetrics and gynecology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Vulvovaginal candidiasis (VVC) is a common infection, and high-quality studies report that misdiagnosis is frequent, with diagnostic testing needed to distinguish it from other causes of vaginitis and avoid inappropriate empiric treatment. However, few recent studies have evaluated U.S. healthcare providers' testing practices for VVC in detail. We evaluated healthcare providers' self-reported testing practices for VVC and treatment outcomes as part of a nationwide online survey in order to identify potential opportunities for improving VVC testing and treatment in the United States. Among 1,503 providers surveyed, 21.3% reported "always" (7.4%) or "usually" (13.9%) ordering diagnostic testing for patients with suspected VVC; this proportion was higher among gynecologists (36.0%) compared with family practitioners (17.8%) and internists (15.8%). Most providers (91.2%) reported that patients' VVC "always" (6.4%) or "usually" (84.9%) responds to initial treatment. Whether the symptom resolution reported in this survey was truly related to VVC is unclear given high rates of misdiagnosis and known widespread empiric prescribing. With only about one-in-five providers reporting usually or always performing diagnostic testing for VVC despite guidelines recommending universal use, research is needed to address barriers to proper testing.
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.