Observational studyJournal of clinical microbiology2023
Clinical Evaluation of a New Molecular Test for the Detection of Organisms Causing Vaginitis and Vaginosis.
Observational study in Journal of clinical microbiology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Randomized Study of Usual Care Versus Xpert ® Xpress Multiplex Vaginal Panel at the Point-of-Care for Accurate Diagnosis and Appropriate Treatment of Vaginal Infections.Sexually transmitted diseases · 2026Trial
- Clinical utility of nucleic acid amplification testing for detection of sexually transmitted infections in women with symptomatic bacterial vaginosis and vulvovaginal candidiasis identified by conventional versus molecular diagnoses.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2026Article
- Comparing BD Affirm VPIII to Xpert Xpress MVP and BD MAX Vaginal Panel for the diagnosis of vaginal infections.Microbiology spectrum · 2026Article
- Species Diversity and Epidemiological Trends of Candida Isolates Recovered From Vaginitis Cases.Cureus · 2026Article
- Evaluation of the Hologic Aptima Vaginitis assays for microbiological diagnosis of vaginitis in women with abnormal vaginal discharge attending primary care.Journal of medical microbiology · 2026Article
- Advancing Antimicrobial Stewardship With Diagnostic Excellence: The Role of Bayesian Reasoning.Open forum infectious diseases · 2026Article
- Perspectives on Vaginal Ecology and Management of Recurrent Vulvovaginal Candidiasis: A Narrative Review.Journal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Evaluation of the user experience for a point of care molecular test for causes of vaginitis.BMC infectious diseases · 2025Article
- Bacterial vaginosis.Nature reviews. Disease primers · 2025Review
- Vaginal mycobiome characteristics and therapeutic strategies in vulvovaginal candidiasis (VVC): differentiating pathogenic species and microecological features for stratified treatment.Clinical microbiology reviews · 2025Review
- Clinical laboratory evaluation of the Hologic Panther Aptima BV and CV/TV assays for the diagnosis of vaginitis in Dunedin, Aotearoa New Zealand.Microbiology spectrum · 2025Article
- Prospective, multi-site evaluation of the Cepheid Xpert Xpress CoV-2Journal of clinical microbiology · 2024Article
- Diagnostic performance of DNA probe-based and PCR-based molecular vaginitis testing.Microbiology spectrum · 2023Article
- State of the Art for Diagnosis of Bacterial Vaginosis.Journal of clinical microbiology · 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
13 authors at 9 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In this prospective, observational, method comparison clinical study, the Xpert Xpress MVP test (MVP) was evaluated using both clinician-collected (CVS) and self-collected vaginal swabs (SVS) collected in a clinical setting. The study was conducted at 12 sites, including point-of-care (POC) settings, from geographically diverse locations in the United States. Participants were biologically female patients ≥ 14 years old with signs and/or symptoms of vaginitis/vaginosis. MVP test results for BV were compared to the BD MAX Vaginal Panel (BDVP). Results for Candida group and Candida glabrata and Candida krusei targets (species not differentiated) were assessed relative to yeast culture followed by mass spectrometry for species identification. Trichomonas vaginalis (TV) results were compared relative to a composite method that included results from the BDVP and InPouch TV culture. The investigational test demonstrated high positive percent agreement ranging from 93.6 to 99.0%, and negative percent agreement ranging from 92.1% to 99.8% for both CVS and SVS specimens, indicating it may be a valuable tool for the diagnosis of vaginitis/vaginosis in laboratory and POC settings.
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.