ArticleOnline journal of public health informatics2025
Understanding Patient Perceptions of Bacterial Vaginosis Treatments: Mixed Methods Sentiment Analysis Study of Online Drug Review Forums.
Article in Online journal of public health informatics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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) is the most common cause of vaginal discharge in people of childbearing age in the United States. More information about what patients do and do not like about the most common BV products and the extent to which they reduce BV symptoms is important for understanding patients' health and the current treatment landscape for BV.
objectiveUsing data from online drug review forums, this study's objectives were to (1) quantitatively characterize the patient voice via sentiments (positive to negative) and emotions about the three most common Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved treatments for BV-oral metronidazole (OM), vaginal metronidazole (VM), vaginal clindamycin (VC)-and (2) qualitatively summarize themes characterizing the patient-perceived impact of BV and BV products.
methodsData for this mixed methods descriptive study came from 1645 users' reviews of BV products posted on WebMD.com and Drugs.com. Reviewer attributes, reviewer-submitted star ratings, and sentiment analysis (SA) using word-emotion association were analyzed with descriptive statistics and bivariate associations. A traditional qualitative analysis using qualitative description was also performed.
resultsMost reviewers were female (n=629, 99.4%), between the ages of 18 and 44 years, and reported using BV products for less than 1 month, though qualitative results suggested most reported recurrent BV infections. Quantitative results revealed reviewers' preference for vaginal products. The mean star ratings for VC were significantly higher when compared to OM and VM. VC reviews had the highest proportion of positive emotion words compared to OM and VM. Qualitative results for VC supported the quantitative findings: favorable themes related to perceptions of value, effectiveness in alleviating symptoms, and minimal side effects. Additionally, despite some concerns related to the cost of VC, reviewers said they would use the medication again. Other qualitative findings supported BV medical education campaigns for patients and providers on BV treatment.
conclusionsOverall, people want a BV treatment that is easy to use, quickly alleviates symptoms, and has minimal side effects. Patients use product reviews to inform their decision-making about BV treatment, ask and seek answers to health-related questions, and share their experiences, presenting a unique opportunity for comprehensive patient education through clinical encounters or public health outreach efforts.
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.