ArticleNPJ digital medicine2023
Diagnostic performance of an automated microscopy and pH test for diagnosis of vaginitis.
Article in NPJ digital medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04219605 (Evaluation of a Rapid Microscopic Diagnostic System for Different Vaginitis Conditions), which is not on this 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.
Evaluation of a Rapid Microscopic Diagnostic System for Different Vaginitis Conditions
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Diagnostic performance of deep learning-based vaginal microecological morphology assessment for bacterial vaginosis and vulvovaginal candidiasis.Frontiers in microbiology · 2026Article
- Volatile organic compound profiling by HS-GC-IMS for vaginal infection identification.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2026Article
- Genital cutaneous candidiasis versus chronic recurrent vulvovaginal candidiasis: distinct diseases, different populations.Clinical microbiology reviews · 2025Review
- Applying machine learning with MobileNetV2 model for rapid screening of vaginal discharge samples in vaginitis diagnosis.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Rapid Molecular Diagnostics in Vulvovaginal Candidosis.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Vaginitis is a common gynecological problem, nevertheless, its clinical evaluation is often insufficient. This study evaluated the performance of an automated microscope for the diagnosis of vaginitis, by comparison of the investigated test results to a composite reference standard (CRS) of wet mount microscopy performed by a specialist in vulvovaginal disorders, and related laboratory tests. During this single-site cross-sectional prospective study, 226 women reporting vaginitis symptoms were recruited, of which 192 samples were found interpretable and were assessed by the automated microscopy system. Results showed sensitivity between 84.1% (95%CI: 73.67-90.86%) for Candida albicans and 90.9% (95%CI: 76.43-96.86%) for bacterial vaginosis and specificity between 65.9% (95%CI: 57.11-73.64%) for Candida albicans and 99.4% (95%CI: 96.89-99.90%) for cytolytic vaginosis. These findings demonstrate the marked potential of machine learning-based automated microscopy and an automated pH test of vaginal swabs as a basis for a computer-aided suggested diagnosis, for improving the first-line evaluation of five different types of infectious and non-infectious vaginal disorders (vaginal atrophy, bacterial vaginosis, Candida albicans vaginitis, cytolytic vaginosis, and aerobic vaginitis/desquamative inflammatory vaginitis). Using such a tool will hopefully lead to better treatment, decrease healthcare costs, and improve patients' quality of life.
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.