ArticleMedical principles and practice : international journal of the Kuwait University, Health Science Centre2026
Group B <italic>Streptococcus</italic> and Vaginal Microbiome Dynamics in Pregnancy.
Article in Medical principles and practice : international journal of the Kuwait University, Health Science Centre, 2026. 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
objectiveThis study aimed to compare the vaginal microbiome of group B Streptococcus (GBS)-positive and -negative pregnant women in selected tertiary care hospitals in Sri Lanka. SUBJECTS AND
methodsFifteen GBS-positive and fifteen GBS-negative women were included in the study. The composition of vaginal microbiome was profiled by sequencing 16S rRNA V3-V4 region. Microbiome diversity and variation were evaluated.
resultsAlpha diversity measured by Shannon diversity and Chao 1 index differed significantly between GBS-positive and GBS-negative groups (Chao 1, p = 0.0003; Shannon, p = 0.0003), while beta diversity pairwise permutational multivariate analysis of variance (p = 0.435) showed no significant difference, indicating similar overall bacterial compositions. Gardnerella and Prevotella were more abundant in GBS-positive group, while majority of the GBS-negative group was dominated by Lactobacillus (87.9%). Lactobacillus iners was the most abundant species in both groups. Lactobacillus gallinarum, reported for the first time in Sri Lanka, was the second most common Lactobacillus species. Linear discriminant analysis effect size identified no taxa enriched in GBS-negative group, whereas GBS-positive group showed significantly higher relative abundance with several taxa with Bifidobacterium showed the highest linear discriminant analysis score (4.459). Methylocystis, though of low biological relevance, was significantly abundant in GBS-positive group (p = 0.025).
conclusionLactobacillus spp. were reduced in GBS-positive women, with higher abundance of other bacterial taxa suggesting that disruption of a Lactobacillus dominant vaginal microbiome may facilitate GBS colonization and potentially increase the risk of neonatal infection.
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.