Article Sidebar

PDF (Tiếng Việt)
Published: 2024-05-23
Abstract Views: 317
Views PDF (Tiếng Việt): 278
DOI: https://doi.org/10.52852/tcncyh.v176i3.2247
Issue
Vol. 176 No. 3 (2024)
Section
Các bài báo
How to Cite
Thu, D. T. ., Doanh, L. H. ., Hải, L. H. L. ., Hoa, P. Q. ., Hiền, Đỗ T. T. ., Huyền, T. T. ., Nghị, Định H. ., & Vinh, N. T. H. . (2024). 1. Comparison of Amsel’s clinical criteria with Nugent’s scoring system for diagnosis of bacterial vaginosis. Journal of Medical Research, 176(3), 1-7. https://doi.org/10.52852/tcncyh.v176i3.2247

1. Comparison of Amsel's clinical criteria with Nugent’s scoring system for diagnosis of bacterial vaginosis

Duong Thi Thu, Le Huu Doanh, Le Ha Long Hai, Pham Quynh Hoa, Do Thi Thu Hien, Tran Thi Huyen, Dinh Huu Nghi, Nguyen Thi Ha Vinh

Main Article Content

Abstract

This present study was conducted to validate diagnostic tests of BV in 290 women in National Hospital of Dermatology and Venereology, Amsel’s criteria and Nugent scoring system were used to diagnose BV. Nugent scoring system was considered the gold standard and sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value of Amsel’s criteria were compared with those of Nugent scoring system. Results: Kappa coefficient was used to assess the diagnostic value of Nugent scoring system and Amsel’s criteria. Kappa coefficient was found 0.81, which confirms the reliability of both diagnostic methods. As compared to Nugent scoring system, Asmel’s criteria enjoy sensitivity of 85.5%, specificity of 96.1%, positive predictive value of 85.5%, negative predictive value of 96.1%. Conclusion: Amsel’s criteria shows good agreement with the gold standard method of Nugent et al. and can be used as an alternative to Nugent’s criteria for diagnosis of BV.

Article Details

Keywords

BV, Amsel criteria, Nugent scoring system, Gram staining

References

1. Javed A, Parvaiz F, Manzoor S. Bacterial vaginosis: An insight into the prevalence, alternative treatments regimen and it’s associated resistance patterns. Microb Pathog. 2019;127:21-30. doi:10.1016/j.micpath.2018.11 .046
2. Spear GT, St John E, Zariffard MR. Bacterial vaginosis and human immunodeficiency virus infection. AIDS Res Ther. 2007;4:25. doi:10.1186/1742-6405-4-25
3. Mania-Pramanik J, Kerkar SC, Salvi VS. Bacterial vaginosis: A cause of infertility? Int J STD AIDS. 2009;20(11):778-781. doi:10.1258/ijsa.2009.009193
4. Peebles K, Velloza J, Balkus JE. High Global Burden and Costs of Bacterial Vaginosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Sexually Transmitted Diseases. 2019;46(5):304-311. doi:10.1097/OLQ.0000000000000972
5. Nugent RP, Krohn MA, Hillier SL. Reliability of diagnosing bacterial vaginosis is improved by a standardized method of gram stain interpretation. J Clin Microbiol. 1991;29(2):297-301.
6. Chaijareenont K, Sirimai K, Boriboonhirunsarn D. Accuracy of Nugent’s score and each Amsel’s criteria in the diagnosis of bacterial vaginosis. J Med Assoc Thai. 2004;87(11):1270-1274.
7. CDC. Bacterial Vaginosis - STI Treatment Guidelines. 2022.
8. Lokken EM, Jisuvei C, Oyaro B. Nugent Score, Amsel’s Criteria, and a Point-of-Care Rapid Test for Diagnosis of Bacterial Vaginosis: Performance in a Cohort of Kenyan Women. Sexually Transmitted Diseases. 2022;49(1):e22. doi:10.1097/OLQ.0000000000001469
9. Menard JP, Mazouni C, Fenollar F. Diagnostic accuracy of quantitative real-time PCR assay versus clinical and Gram stain identification of bacterial vaginosis. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2010;29(12):1547-1552. doi:10.1007/s10096-010-1039-3
10. Nwadioha S, Egesie JO, Emejuo H. Prevalence of pathogens of abnormal vaginal discharges in a Nigerian tertiary hospital. Asian Pacific Journal of Tropical Medicine. 2010;3(6):483-485. doi:10.1016/S1995-7645(1 0)60116-2
11. Amsel R, Totten PA, Spiegel CA, et al. Nonspecific vaginitis. Diagnostic criteria and microbial and epidemiologic associations. Am J Med. 1983;74(1):14-22. doi:10.1016/0002-9343(83)91112-9
12. Spiegel CA, Amsel R, Holmes KK. Diagnosis of bacterial vaginosis by direct gram stain of vaginal fluid. J Clin Microbiol. 1983;18(1):170-177. doi:10.1128/jcm.18.1.170-177.1983
13. Hay PE, Lamont RF, Taylor-Robinson D, el at. Abnormal bacterial colonisation of the genital tract and subsequent preterm delivery and late miscarriage. BMJ. 1994;308(6924): 295-298. doi:10.1136/bmj.308.6924.295
14. Ison C, Hay P. Validation of a simplified grading of Gram stained vaginal smears for use in genitourinary medicine clinics. Sex Transm Infect. 2002;78(6):413-415. doi:10.1136/sti.78. 6.413
15. Mala R, Sood S, Kapil A. Comparison of Amsel’s criteria with low and high Nugent’s scores for the diagnosis of bacterial vaginosis. Indian J Sex Transm Dis AIDS. 2022;43(1):56-58. doi:10.4103/ijstd.ijstd_67_21
16. Taj Y, Nasir D, Kahkashan N, et al. Sensitivity and Specificity of Rapid Clinical Diagnostic Test for Bacterial Vaginosis and its Analytical Value. 2012;6.
17. Dadhwal V, Hariprasad R, Mittal S. Prevalence of bacterial vaginosis in pregnant women and predictive value of clinical diagnosis. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2010;281(1):101-104. doi:10.1007/s00404-009-1089-x
18. Mengistie Z, Woldeamanuel Y, Asrat D, el at. Comparison of Clinical and Gram Stain Diagnosis Methods of Bacterial Vaginosis Among Pregnant Women in Ethiopia. J Clin Diagn Res. 2013;7(12):2701-2703. doi:10.7860/JCDR/2013/5872.3736