ArticleBMC infectious diseases2025
Evaluation of the user experience for a point of care molecular test for causes of vaginitis.
Article in BMC infectious diseases, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundVaginitis is a major cause of healthcare visits in the US, costing over $1.2 billion annually. Point-of-care (POC) nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs) could improve accuracy of diagnosis and treatment during initial visit for vaginitis compared to send-out NAATs.
methodsA secondary analysis of data was collected from test operators at POC testing sites where the Xpert Xpress Multiplex Vaginal Panel test ("MVP test") was performed. Users completed a survey assessing their experience with the instrument system and the PCR-based MVP test.
resultsThe MVP test demonstrated consistent performance, measured by positive and negative percent agreement, across all user categories, including both trained and untrained staff. Performance was evaluated based on job function (clinicians, non-clinicians, support staff) and educational level (bachelor's degree or higher, associate's degree or some college, high school diploma/general educational development (GED) with technical certification), with no significant differences in performance (P >0.082 and P >0.050, respectively). User feedback from 19 operators showed that 15/19 (79%) of users found the GeneXpert Xpress Instrument System easy to set up, and 18/19 (96%) found the test instructions easy to follow. Users described the system as user-friendly with clear instructions and helpful videos. Overall, 19/19 (100%) agreed that the MVP test was easy to perform.
conclusionsAvailability of accurate POC diagnostics will only be useful if the test can be performed by any potential user. Our study results suggest that the MVP test was acceptable to users and that results were accurate regardless of user qualifications. Thus, this test has the potential to improve the immediate clinical outcome by supporting accurate, same day treatment for causes of vaginitis.
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.