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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Broache, Molly, Cammarata, Catherine L., Stonebraker, Elizabeth, Eckert, Karen, Van Der Pol, Barbara, Taylor, Stephanie N.
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