ArticleBMC women's health2024
The vaginal microbiome of South African pregnant women living with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) with and without Chlamydia trachomatis infection.
Article in BMC women's health, 2024. 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.
- Vaginal Microbiota Dysbiosis and Infections: A Comprehensive Review of Microbial and Therapeutic Perspectives.International journal of women's health · 2026Review
- Microbial regulators of physiological and reproductive health in women of reproductive age: their local, proximal and distal regulatory roles.NPJ biofilms and microbiomes · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundChlamydia genital infections continue to be a serious health concern globally. Previous studies have reported that Chlamydia trachomatis infection alters the vaginal microbiota of infected women. This study investigated differences in the vaginal microbiome of South African pregnant women living with HIV with and without C. trachomatis infection.
methodsThis was a cross-sectional study among 385 pregnant women, recruited from the King Edward VIII Hospital in Durban, South Africa. C. trachomatis was detected using the Applied Biosystems™ TaqMan
resultsThe prevalence of C. trachomatis infection was 12.2% (47/385). The genus Gardnerella (32.14% vs. 24.02%) and species in the genus Gardnerella (31.97% vs. 24.03%) were more abundant in the C. trachomatis-infected group compared to the uninfected group. Lactobacillus iners were also more abundant in the C. trachomatis-infected women (28.30%) compared to the uninfected women. However, these observed patterns did not reach statistical significance. Discriminant analysis showed that the class Alpha-Proteobacteria; order Bacillales; family Enterococcaceae; the genera Enhydrobacter, Enterococcus, and Parabacteroides; Enterococcus spp.; and Pseudomonas stutzeri significantly contributed to a model separating C. trachomatis-infected women from the uninfected group (p < 0.05).
conclusionThe organisms and taxa that significantly contributed to separating the vaginal microbiota of C. trachomatis-infected women from the uninfected women in this study cohort have not been previously observed in association with C. trachomatis infection or the vaginal microbiota. Future studies in larger cohorts that will investigate the role of these microorganisms in C. trachomatis infection and the vaginal microbiota are required.
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.