ArticlePloS one2026
Association between vaginal washing and group B Streptococcus colonization from periconception through the first trimester of pregnancy in a cohort of Kenyan women.
Article in PloS one, 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionVaginal washing has been associated with adverse reproductive health outcomes including pelvic inflammatory disease, reduced fecundability, and HIV acquisition. This analysis tested the hypothesis that vaginal washing is associated with increased risk of group B streptococcus (GBS) colonization.
methodWomen planning pregnancies contributed monthly visits during which vaginal fluid specimens were collected and urine pregnancy testing was performed. In women who became pregnant, additional samples were collected at 9-12 weeks gestation. Broad-range 16S rRNA gene PCR with next generation sequencing (NGS) was performed to identify vaginal bacterial species. Generalized estimating equations with a log link, Poisson family, independent correlation structure and robust errors were used to generate prevalence ratios comparing the prevalence of GBS detection at vaginal washing visits versus non-vaginal washing visits.
resultsThe 189 women who became pregnant contributed 506 samples used in this analysis. Samples were collected at periconception 196 (38.9%), early first trimester 151 (29.8%), and late first trimester visits 159 (31.4%). The prevalence of GBS during the three time periods was 20/196 (10.2%), 11/151 (7.3%) and 2/159 (1.3%) respectively. Vaginal washing was practiced by 51/196 (26.0%), 27/151 (17.9%) and 32/159 (20.1%) participants during the three time periods. Compared to visits with no vaginal washing, there was no increased prevalence of GBS detection at visits where vaginal washing with water was reported (prevalence ratio [PR] 0.51, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.16-1.62). However, the prevalence of GBS detection was nearly five-fold higher at visits when vaginal washing using water and soap was reported (PR 4.66, 95% CI 1.51, 14.33).
conclusionVaginal washing with soap and water was associated with a nearly five-fold increase in GBS prevalence. Future studies should evaluate this association in later pregnancy and peripartum. Cessation or modification of vaginal washing practices could be a useful strategy for decreasing GBS colonization.
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.