SynthesisBMC women's health2025
BVBlue as a diagnostic instrument for the diagnosis of bacterial vaginosis: a systematic review.
Synthesis in BMC women's health, 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.
- Imaging characteristics and comparative evaluation of dual-fluorescence assay in various types of vaginitis: a cross-sectional study.BMC microbiology · 2026Article
- Phage therapy for treatment of bacterial vaginosis.Archives of microbiology · 2026Review
- Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBacterial vaginosis (BV) refers to an imbalance in normal vaginal flora, affecting approximately 50-60% of individuals engaging in high-risk sexual behaviors. BV diagnosis traditionally relies on Amsel's criteria or Nugent's scoring, but these methods are sluggishly effective, leading to delayed treatment. BVBlue, a swift point-of-care test, holds promise as a potential diagnostic tool for BV. This systematic review aims to evaluate the accuracy of the BVBlue criteria compared with Nugent's scoring in diagnosing BV.
methodsWe conducted a systematic search using designated terms in PubMed, ProQuest, and Scopus to identify all studies reporting BVBlue in diagnosing BV. We subsequently screened and critically evaluated the journals via the QUADAS-2 Quality Assessment Tool. This systematic review has been registered in PROSPERO (no. CRD42024545022).
resultOut of 19 studies identified in our research, five were ultimately included. The quality assessment results revealed that all the included studies had good quality and low risk of bias. BVBlue has a sensitivity ranging from 38% to 91.7% and a specificity ranging from 91 to 100% in diagnosing BV. Four studies endorsed the BVBlue scale because of its high sensitivity, specificity, and rapidity in diagnosing BV. However, one study advised against its use in certain populations with mixed vaginal infections because of its inability to detect variation in composition and diversity of vaginal bacterial flora, that may be sialidase-negative.
conclusionOur systematic review revealed that BVBlue is a promising diagnostic tool for BV because of its accuracy and speed. Nevertheless, additional research is essential, particularly in elucidating the bacterial epidemiology of BV in certain countries, to validate its diagnostic credibility thoroughly.
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.