This Article Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Reprints and Permissions Copyright Information Books from ASM Press MicrobeWorld Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Krohn, M A Articles by Eschenbach, D A Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Krohn, M A Articles by Eschenbach, D A

 Previous Article  |  Next Article 

J Clin Microbiol. 1989 June; 27(6): 1266-1271

Comparison of methods for diagnosing bacterial vaginosis among pregnant women.

Department of Epidemiology, University of Washington, Seattle 98195.

ABSTRACT

The diagnosis of bacterial vaginosis is usually based on clinical criteria including homogeneous vaginal discharge, an elevated vaginal pH, the presence of clue cells, and an amine odor. We have evaluated the vaginal flora and clinical signs for 593 pregnant women. Gardnerella vaginalis, Bacteroides spp., and Mycoplasma hominis were isolated more frequently among women with clinical signs than among those without clinical signs of bacterial vaginosis in multivariable analyses that controlled for other bacteria. To determine the laboratory method that best predicted bacterial vaginosis, we calculated the sensitivity, specificity, and predictive value of positive and negative tests for Gram-stained vaginal smears, gas-liquid chromatography of vaginal fluid, and G. vaginalis cultures compared with clinical signs. G. vaginalis culture was sensitive (92%) and both gas-liquid chromatography (78%) and Gram-stained vaginal smears (62%) were moderately sensitive in identifying women with three of the four clinical signs of bacterial vaginosis. However, the Gram-stained vaginal smear (95%) was more specific than G. vaginalis culture (69%) or gas-liquid chromatography (81%). The predictive value of a positive test was also higher for the Gram staining (76%) than for G. vaginalis culture (41%) or gas-liquid chromatography (48%).

This article has been cited by other articles:

• Sha, B. E., Chen, H. Y., Wang, Q. J., Zariffard, M. R., Cohen, M. H., Spear, G. T. (2005). Utility of Amsel Criteria, Nugent Score, and Quantitative PCR for Gardnerella vaginalis, Mycoplasma hominis, and Lactobacillus spp. for Diagnosis of Bacterial Vaginosis in Human Immunodeficiency Virus-Infected Women. J. Clin. Microbiol. 43: 4607-4612 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Witt, A., Petricevic, L., Kaufmann, U., Gregor, H., Kiss, H. (2002). DNA Hybridization Test: Rapid Diagnostic Tool for Excluding Bacterial Vaginosis in Pregnant Women with Symptoms Suggestive of Infection. J. Clin. Microbiol. 40: 3057-3059 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Morris, M C, Rogers, P A, Kinghorn, G R (2001). Is bacterial vaginosis a sexually transmitted infection?. Sex. Transm. Infect. 77: 63-68 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• O'Dowd, T C, Bourne, N (1994). Inventing a new diagnostic test for vaginal infection. BMJ 309: 40-42 [Full Text]