ArticleAMB Express2025
Best among the key molecular diagnostic markers of bacterial vaginosis.
Article in AMB Express, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Association between sexually transmitted infections and reproductive lifespan: analysis of the NHANES 1999-2023.BMC public health · 2026Article
- Population‑Specific Diversity of Dominant VaginalInternational journal of women's health · 2026Article
- Article
- Recent Advances in the Role of Bacteriophages in the Aetiology and Therapy of Vaginal Dysbiosis in the Form of Bacterial Vaginosis and the Prevention of Preterm Birth.Microorganisms · 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
To assess bacterial vaginosis (BV)-related primary molecular diagnostic markers of Lactobacillus crispatus, Gardnerella vaginalis, Fannyhessea vaginae, bacterial vaginosis-associated bacteria 2 (BVAB-2), Megasphaera-1 and Megasphaera-2 and to discover molecular diagnostic indicators of BV with the most economic value for the efficient diagnosis of BV.All vaginal secretion specimens, including 122 BV-positive cases and 130 BV-negative controls were collected. First, quantitative polymerase chain reaction (PCR) was used to determine the levels of above the six bacteria. Then, the detection rates, sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic threshold, and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve were compared. Megasphaera-1 and Megasphaera-2 were detected in the BV-positive group, with a low detection rate of 35.25% and 19.67% respectively. The sensitivity and specificity of the above four bacteria were 95.90%/72.31%, 82.79%/92.48%, 72.13%/95.38%, and 56.56%/94.62% respectively, using the cut-off value for the diagnosis of BV. When combinations of L. crispatus with G. vaginalis, F. vaginae, and BVAB-2 were performed respectively, their sensitivity and specificity were 99.29%/97.79%, 98.86%/98.72%, and 98.22%/98.51% in sequence.It is difficult to diagnose BV using only one species, however, combinations of L. crispatus with G. vaginalis or F. vaginae showed a better diagnostic effect, particularly with the combination of L. crispatus and G. vaginalis.
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.