Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39504318›Full record

ArticlePloS one2024

Evaluation of the Vaginal Panel Realtime PCR kit (Vircell, SL) for diagnosing vaginitis: A comparative study with routinely used diagnostics.

Isabel Amor, Ana Alberola, Adolfo De Salazar, Laura Viñuela, Sara Úbeda-Portugués, María Isabel Galán, Pablo Mendoza, Federico García

Abstract readComparative StudyEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Nucleic Acid Amplification Tests forPathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026
    Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
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.

Isabel AmorDepartment of Research and Development in Molecular Diagnostic, Vircell S.L., Granada, Spain.ORCID 0009-0001-6646-9528
Ana AlberolaDepartment of Clinical Microbiology, Hospital Universitario Clínico San Cecilio, Granada, Spain.
Adolfo De SalazarDepartment of Clinical Microbiology, Hospital Universitario Clínico San Cecilio, Granada, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-4318-858X
Laura ViñuelaDepartment of Clinical Microbiology, Hospital Universitario Clínico San Cecilio, Granada, Spain.
Sara Úbeda-PortuguésDepartment of Research and Development in Molecular Diagnostic, Vircell S.L., Granada, Spain.ORCID 0009-0001-7610-3175
María Isabel GalánDepartment of Clinical Microbiology, Hospital Universitario Clínico San Cecilio, Granada, Spain.
Pablo MendozaDepartment of Research and Development in Molecular Diagnostic, Vircell S.L., Granada, Spain.
Federico GarcíaDepartment of Clinical Microbiology, Hospital Universitario Clínico San Cecilio, Granada, Spain.ORCID 0000-0001-7611-781X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Vaginitis is a prevalent clinical disorder associated with several adverse health consequences, prompting women to seek medical care. In this study we evaluate the Vaginal Panel Real-Time PCR kit (qPCR test) against routinely used diagnostics for detection of bacterial vaginosis (BV), vulvovaginal candidiasis (VVC), and trichomoniasis. A total of 1011 vaginal swab specimens were analyzed. The routinely diagnostic methods for BV was Gram stain-based Nugent score. VVC presence was detected by culture, and Candida species were identified using MALDI-TOF MS. Trichomonas vaginalis was identified by culture in a selective medium. Molecular analyses were conducted on the MagXtract® 3200 System and analyzed using the CFX96™ Real-Time PCR Detection System. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of the qPCR test compared to the reference method for BV diagnosis was 93.1%, 88.8%, 90.1% and 92.2%, respectively, with a Kappa value of 0.82. For Candida species, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value were 96.0%, 98.4%, 95.3%, and 98.7%, respectively. The qPCR test detected 32 additional positive samples for Candida not reported by the routinely used diagnostics. For trichomoniasis, the qPCR test identified T. vaginalis in fifteen specimens, despite no microscopic detection in cultured specimens. Our results demonstrate that the Vaginal Panel Real-Time PCR kit shows optimal concordance with routinely used diagnostics for diagnosing vaginitis. Furthermore, enhancing detection of T. vaginalis. However, further validation studies are necessary to confirm its full diagnostic accuracy. The use of nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs) provides rapid and accurate diagnosis, crucial for early detection and treatment of vaginitis.

Indexed as

Candidiasis, VulvovaginalReal-Time Polymerase Chain ReactionTrichomonas vaginalisAdultCandidaFemaleHumansReagent Kits, DiagnosticSensitivity and SpecificityTrichomonas VaginitisVaginaVaginitisVaginosis, BacterialReagent Kits, Diagnostic

Identifiers

PMID39504318
PMCPMC11540222

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.