ArticleBMC microbiology2026
Imaging characteristics and comparative evaluation of dual-fluorescence assay in various types of vaginitis: a cross-sectional study.
Article in BMC microbiology, 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundRapid and accurate differentiation of common vaginitis remains challenging in routine clinical practice. Dual-fluorescence assay, which simultaneously visualizes microorganisms and host cells under blue light excitation, may serve as an adjunctive tool to conventional microscopy. This study explored the imaging characteristics of dual-fluorescence staining in cultured vaginal epithelial cells and standard reference microbial strains, and further evaluated its diagnostic performance in a clinical population of 758 women undergoing vaginal secretion testing.
results(1) Under 450-500 nm blue light excitation: Red fluorophores specifically labeled microorganisms (including pathogenic fungi, bacteria, and Trichomonas vaginalis), while green fluorophores counterstained host cells (e.g., epithelial cells and leukocytes). The distinct color contrast between microorganisms and host cells, combined with microbial morphological features, enabled rapid localization and identification of pathogens. (2) Dual-fluorescence assay demonstrated strong concordance with conventional microscopy: For bacterial vaginosis (BV), the sensitivity was 0.886 (95% CI: 0.796-0.955), specificity was 0.958 (95% CI: 0.931-0.979), and Kappa was 0.821 (95% CI: 0.756-0.901); for vulvovaginal candidiasis (VVC), sensitivity was 0.953 (95% CI: 0.840-0.988), specificity was 0.978 (95% CI: 0.953-0.990), and Kappa was 0.908 (95% CI: 0.847-0.963); for aerobic vaginitis (AV), sensitivity was 0.800 (95% CI: 0.535-0.848), specificity was 0.959 (95% CI: 0.924-0.995), and Kappa was 0.697 (95% CI: 0.616-0.863); and for trichomoniasis (TV), sensitivity was 0.833 (95% CI: 0.365-0.991), specificity was 0.995 (95% CI: 0.979-0.999), and Kappa was 0.766 (95% CI: 0.331-1.000).
conclusionThe dual-fluorescence assay technique enables simultaneous detection of four common types of vaginitis (including mixed vaginitis) while integrating the diagnostic advantages of both wet mount and Gram staining methods, thus demonstrating high clinical utility.
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.