ArticlePloS one2023
Scoping review of cytolytic vaginosis literature.
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.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Review
- Old but gold: an historical perspective of wet mount microscopy and its current role for the diagnosis of vaginitis.Frontiers in reproductive health · 2026Review
- Age-specific vaginal microecological dysbiosis associated with HPV infection: a large-scale cross-sectional study with targeted functional sequencing validation.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2025Article
- Comparison of the lower genital tract microbiome composition in patients with benign gynecological disease.Frontiers in global women's health · 2025Article
- Development and Characterization of Sodium Bicarbonate-Based Gel for Cytolytic Vaginosis.Pharmaceutics · 2024Article
- Vaginal Microbiota and Proinflammatory Status in Patients with Polycystic Ovary Syndrome: An Exploratory Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Extracellular Traps in Patients Diagnosed With Bacterial Vaginosis, Trichomoniasis, Candidiasis, Noninfectious Vaginitis and Cytolytic Vaginosis.International journal of microbiology · 2024Article
- Vulvovaginitis in pregnant women.Revista brasileira de ginecologia e obstetricia : revista da Federacao Brasileira das Sociedades de Ginecologia e Obstetricia · 2024Review
- Molecular Testing for the Diagnosis of Bacterial Vaginosis.International journal of molecular sciences · 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
8 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.