Cargando…
Performance of a Vaginal Panel Assay Compared With the Clinical Diagnosis of Vaginitis
To compare the performance of vaginitis diagnosis based on clinical assessment to molecular detection of organisms associated with bacterial vaginosis, vulvovaginal candidiasis, and Trichomonas vaginalis using a vaginal panel assay. METHODS: This cross-sectional diagnostic accuracy study included 48...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8594526/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34736269 http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0000000000004592 |
_version_ | 1784600012272959488 |
---|---|
author | Broache, Molly Cammarata, Catherine L. Stonebraker, Elizabeth Eckert, Karen Van Der Pol, Barbara Taylor, Stephanie N. |
author_facet | Broache, Molly Cammarata, Catherine L. Stonebraker, Elizabeth Eckert, Karen Van Der Pol, Barbara Taylor, Stephanie N. |
author_sort | Broache, Molly |
collection | PubMed |
description | To compare the performance of vaginitis diagnosis based on clinical assessment to molecular detection of organisms associated with bacterial vaginosis, vulvovaginal candidiasis, and Trichomonas vaginalis using a vaginal panel assay. METHODS: This cross-sectional diagnostic accuracy study included 489 enrolled participants from five collection sites where those with vaginitis symptoms had a vaginal assay swab collected during their visit and a clinical diagnosis made. The swab was later sent to a separate testing site to perform the vaginal panel assay. Outcome measures include positive, negative, and overall percent agreement (and accompanying 95% CIs) of clinical assessment with the vaginal panel assay. P<.05 was used to distinguish significant differences in paired proportions between the vaginal panel assay and clinical diagnosis, using the McNemar test. Inter-rater agreement between the two diagnostic approaches was determined using Cohen's kappa coefficient. RESULTS: Clinical diagnosis had a positive percent agreement with the vaginal panel assay of 57.9% (95% CI 51.5–64.2%), 53.5% (95% CI 44.5–62.4%), and 28.0% (95% CI 12.1–49.4%) for bacterial vaginosis, vulvovaginal candidiasis, and T vaginalis, respectively. Negative percent agreement for clinical diagnosis was 80.2% (95% CI 74.3–85.2%), 77.0% (95% CI 72.1–81.4%), and 99.8% (95% CI 98.7–99.9%), respectively. Sixty-five percent (67/103), 44% (26/59), and 56% (10/18) of patients identified as having bacterial vaginosis, vulvovaginal candidiasis, and T vaginalis by assay, respectively, were not treated for vaginitis based on a negative clinical diagnosis. Compared with the assay, clinical diagnosis had false-positive rates of 19.8%, 23.0%, and 0.2% for bacterial vaginosis, vulvovaginal candidiasis, and T vaginalis, respectively. Significant differences in paired proportions were observed between the vaginal panel assay and clinical diagnosis for detection of bacterial vaginosis and T vaginalis. CONCLUSION: The vaginal panel assay could improve the diagnostic accuracy for vaginitis and facilitate appropriate and timely treatment. FUNDING SOURCE: Becton, Dickinson and Company. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8594526 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | Lippincott Williams & Wilkins |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-85945262021-11-19 Performance of a Vaginal Panel Assay Compared With the Clinical Diagnosis of Vaginitis Broache, Molly Cammarata, Catherine L. Stonebraker, Elizabeth Eckert, Karen Van Der Pol, Barbara Taylor, Stephanie N. Obstet Gynecol Contents To compare the performance of vaginitis diagnosis based on clinical assessment to molecular detection of organisms associated with bacterial vaginosis, vulvovaginal candidiasis, and Trichomonas vaginalis using a vaginal panel assay. METHODS: This cross-sectional diagnostic accuracy study included 489 enrolled participants from five collection sites where those with vaginitis symptoms had a vaginal assay swab collected during their visit and a clinical diagnosis made. The swab was later sent to a separate testing site to perform the vaginal panel assay. Outcome measures include positive, negative, and overall percent agreement (and accompanying 95% CIs) of clinical assessment with the vaginal panel assay. P<.05 was used to distinguish significant differences in paired proportions between the vaginal panel assay and clinical diagnosis, using the McNemar test. Inter-rater agreement between the two diagnostic approaches was determined using Cohen's kappa coefficient. RESULTS: Clinical diagnosis had a positive percent agreement with the vaginal panel assay of 57.9% (95% CI 51.5–64.2%), 53.5% (95% CI 44.5–62.4%), and 28.0% (95% CI 12.1–49.4%) for bacterial vaginosis, vulvovaginal candidiasis, and T vaginalis, respectively. Negative percent agreement for clinical diagnosis was 80.2% (95% CI 74.3–85.2%), 77.0% (95% CI 72.1–81.4%), and 99.8% (95% CI 98.7–99.9%), respectively. Sixty-five percent (67/103), 44% (26/59), and 56% (10/18) of patients identified as having bacterial vaginosis, vulvovaginal candidiasis, and T vaginalis by assay, respectively, were not treated for vaginitis based on a negative clinical diagnosis. Compared with the assay, clinical diagnosis had false-positive rates of 19.8%, 23.0%, and 0.2% for bacterial vaginosis, vulvovaginal candidiasis, and T vaginalis, respectively. Significant differences in paired proportions were observed between the vaginal panel assay and clinical diagnosis for detection of bacterial vaginosis and T vaginalis. CONCLUSION: The vaginal panel assay could improve the diagnostic accuracy for vaginitis and facilitate appropriate and timely treatment. FUNDING SOURCE: Becton, Dickinson and Company. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins 2021-12 2021-11-04 /pmc/articles/PMC8594526/ /pubmed/34736269 http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0000000000004592 Text en © 2021 by The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-No Derivatives License 4.0 (CCBY-NC-ND) (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) , where it is permissible to download and share the work provided it is properly cited. The work cannot be changed in any way or used commercially without permission from the journal. |
spellingShingle | Contents Broache, Molly Cammarata, Catherine L. Stonebraker, Elizabeth Eckert, Karen Van Der Pol, Barbara Taylor, Stephanie N. Performance of a Vaginal Panel Assay Compared With the Clinical Diagnosis of Vaginitis |
title | Performance of a Vaginal Panel Assay Compared With the Clinical Diagnosis of Vaginitis |
title_full | Performance of a Vaginal Panel Assay Compared With the Clinical Diagnosis of Vaginitis |
title_fullStr | Performance of a Vaginal Panel Assay Compared With the Clinical Diagnosis of Vaginitis |
title_full_unstemmed | Performance of a Vaginal Panel Assay Compared With the Clinical Diagnosis of Vaginitis |
title_short | Performance of a Vaginal Panel Assay Compared With the Clinical Diagnosis of Vaginitis |
title_sort | performance of a vaginal panel assay compared with the clinical diagnosis of vaginitis |
topic | Contents |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8594526/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34736269 http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0000000000004592 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT broachemolly performanceofavaginalpanelassaycomparedwiththeclinicaldiagnosisofvaginitis AT cammaratacatherinel performanceofavaginalpanelassaycomparedwiththeclinicaldiagnosisofvaginitis AT stonebrakerelizabeth performanceofavaginalpanelassaycomparedwiththeclinicaldiagnosisofvaginitis AT eckertkaren performanceofavaginalpanelassaycomparedwiththeclinicaldiagnosisofvaginitis AT vanderpolbarbara performanceofavaginalpanelassaycomparedwiththeclinicaldiagnosisofvaginitis AT taylorstephanien performanceofavaginalpanelassaycomparedwiththeclinicaldiagnosisofvaginitis |