Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36701339›Full record

ArticlePloS one2023

Scoping review of cytolytic vaginosis literature.

Roni Kraut, Fabiola Diaz Carvallo, Richard Golonka, Sandra M Campbell, Anoush Rehmani, Oksana Babenko, Mao-Cheng Lee, Pedro Vieira-Baptista

Open access · goldAbstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 14% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Vulvovaginitis in pregnant women.Revista brasileira de ginecologia e obstetricia : revista da Federacao Brasileira das Sociedades de Ginecologia e Obstetricia · 2024
    Review
  9. Molecular Testing for the Diagnosis of Bacterial Vaginosis.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023
    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

8 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Roni KrautDepartment of Family Medicine, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-3354-4955
Fabiola Diaz CarvalloDepartment of Family Medicine, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Richard GolonkaSchool of Public Health, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Sandra M CampbellJohn W. Scott Health Sciences Library, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada.
Anoush RehmaniFaculty of Kinesiology, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Oksana BabenkoDepartment of Family Medicine, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-2140-1551
Mao-Cheng LeeDepartment of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Pedro Vieira-BaptistaHospital Lusíadas Porto, Porto, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0001-5335-6770
University of Alberta · CAHospital de São João · PTUniversity of Calgary · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCytolytic vaginosis (CV) is a little-known, controversial condition that is typically not considered for women presenting with vulvovaginitis symptoms. Objective: The objective of this scoping review was to identify and compile the global evidence on CV.

methodsA medical librarian searched Prospero, Wiley Cochrane Library, Ovid Embase, Ovid Medline, EBSCO CINAHL, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global, and Scopus, from inception to April 4, 2019 and updated to October 17, 2021. Studies were eligible if they discussed CV. Two independent reviewers conducted study selection and data extraction.

resultsSixty-four studies were identified, with 67% of studies (n = 43) published since 2007. Studies were from around the world, including the United States (28%, n = 18), Brazil (11%, n = 7), Portugal (11%, n = 7), and China (11%, n = 7). Fifty percent of studies (n = 32) were reviews; the remainder were observational; and of these, 78% (n = 25) were cross-sectional. The most frequent topics included: diagnosis (19%, n = 12), prevalence (17%, n = 11), and overview of CV (50%, n = 32). Evidence for prevalence in symptomatic women (median prevalence of 5%, interquartile range 3%-8%) was based only on 16% of studies (n = 10) with minimal evidence on prevalence in asymptomatic women and across different geographic regions. Microbiological findings, including abundant lactobacilli and fragmented epithelial cells, were found useful to distinguish between CV and vulvovaginal candidiasis, and Lactobacillus crispatus was noted to dominate the vaginal flora in women with CV. Most studies used subjective criteria to diagnose CV as the condition lacks gold-standard microscopic criteria. The suggested primary treatment (baking soda irrigations) was largely based on expert opinion, and there was minimal evidence on associations between CV and other conditions.

conclusionKnowledge gaps currently exist in all realms of CV research. Additional research is needed to confirm the validity of CV and ensure that women are diagnosed and treated effectively.

Indexed as

Candidiasis, VulvovaginalLactobacillus crispatusCell DeathFemaleHumansLactobacillusVagina

Identifiers

PMID36701339
PMCPMC9879469
OpenAlexW4318142555

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.