Vaginal Swabs Versus Lavage for Detection of Trichomonas vaginalis and Bacterial Vaginosis Among HIV-Positive Women
ABSTRACT Cervicovaginal lavage (CVL) is often used for research and may be easier and more accurate than vaginal swabs as a specimen collection method.
The goal of this study was to compare (CVL) with vaginal swabs for the detection of bacterial vaginosis (BV) and Trichomonas vaginalis (TV).
CVL and vaginal swabs were collected from 216 HIV-infected women. Clinical assessments were made using wet mount for TV and Amsel's criteria for BV through CVL and swab collection methods. Laboratory gold standards used were Nugent's criteria for BV and InPouch (Biomed Diagnostics, San Jose, CA) culture for TV collected by swab.
The prevalence by gold standards for BV was 49.3% and for TV was 25.2%. Sensitivities for direct microscopy versus culture for TV were 72.2 for CVL and 52.8 for vaginal swab (P <0.05). Sensitivities for Amsel's versus Nugent's criteria for BV were 36.2 for CVL and 34.0 for vaginal swab (P <0.80). Kappa scores of agreement between CVL and vaginal swabs for BV and TV were excellent for both.
CVL was comparable to vaginal swabs as a specimen collection method for these 2 lower genital tract infections and may be superior for the diagnosis of TV.
- Sex Transm Dis 03/2006; 33(2):124-5. DOI:10.1097/01.olq.0000199764.35851.72 · 2.75 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Health professionals are frequently reluctant to recognize or investigate the sexuality of their older patients. Thus, sexual health may never be addressed, even among older adults who come into frequent contact with health care professionals. As the dominant culture continues to shift toward a more realistic view of aging that supports the expression of sexuality among older adults, evaluation of sexual health will become a critical component of comprehensive assessment of the geriatric patient. This article reviews the clinical features and management of common sexually transmitted diseases in the older adult.Current Infectious Disease Reports 04/2006; 8(2):139-47. DOI:10.1007/s11908-006-0010-z
- International Journal of STD & AIDS 04/2007; 18(3):220. DOI:10.1258/095646207780132424 · 1.04 Impact Factor