Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Diagnosis of bacterial vaginosis in the pregnant patient in an acute care setting

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objective

To determine the accuracy of clinical criteria relative to Nugent’s criteria for diagnosing bacterial vaginosis (BV) in the pregnant patient.

Methods

This prospective study was conducted in pregnant patients requiring a speculum examination in an ER triage system. Determination was made of vaginal pH, whiff test, clue cells and discharge for use with Amsel’s criteria. Diagnosis of BV was made using Nugent’s criteria. Data were analyzed with Student’s t and chi square statistics.

Results

Samples by Nugent’s criteria were positive for 32 women out of a sample size of 193 (16.6%). There were no significant differences in chief complaints between women with and without BV. Significantly more women with BV reported odor, but there were no other significant differences in symptoms between women with and without BV. Patients with BV were significantly less likely to have a white discharge. The whiff test was not reported in many cases, however, when a test was recorded, women with BV were significantly more likely to have a positive test. Approximately 50% of the women with BV had either ≥20% clue cells or pH > 4.5; only 25% had both. Sensitivities of pH > 4.5, pH ≥ 4.5, ≥20% clue cells, whiff test and the combination of high pH and clue cells were low (22–81%). Specificities of individual and combined criteria ranged from 68 to 99%. The negative predictive power of pH < 4.5 was 95%; 113 women had a pH less than 4.5 and of these women, 107 did not have BV.

Discussion

The negative predictive power of a pH < 4.5 is very high, and the majority of women fell into this category. An algorithm for pregnant women could therefore be constructed that would call for pH to be tested. Women with a pH < 4.5 would not receive treatment or undergo further testing. The minority of women with a pH ≥ 4.5 would then undergo testing with the Gram stain using Nugent’s criteria.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Leitich H, Kiss H (2007) Asymptomatic bacterial vaginosis and intermediate flora as risk factors for adverse pregnancy outcome. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 21(3):375–390. doi:10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2006.12.005

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Leitich H, Brunbauer M, Bodner-Adler B, Kaider A, Egarter C, Husslein P (2003) Antibiotic treatment of bacterial vaginosis in pregnancy: a meta-analysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 188(3):752–758. doi:10.1067/mob.2003.167

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Nygren P, Fu R, Freeman M, Bougatsos C, Klebanoff M, Guise JM, US Preventive Services Task Force (2008) Evidence on the benefits and harms of screening and treating pregnant women who are asymptomatic for bacterial vaginosis: an update review for the US Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med 148(3):220–233

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. http://www.cdc.gov/std/bv/STDFact-Bacterial-Vaginosis.htm#pregnant. Accessed 7 May 2008

  5. Hauth JC, Goldenberg RL, Andrews WW, DuBard MB, Copper RL (1995) Reduced incidence of preterm delivery with metronidazole and erythromycin in women with bacterial vaginosis. N Engl J Med 333(26):1732–1736. doi:10.1056/NEJM199512283332603

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Vermeulen GM, Bruinse HW (1999) Prophylactic administration of clindamycin 2% vaginal cream to reduce the incidence of spontaneous preterm birth in women with an increased recurrence risk: a randomised placebo-controlled double-blind trial. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 106(7):652–657

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Carey JC, Klebanoff MA (2005) Is a change in the vaginal flora associated with an increased risk of preterm birth? Am J Obstet Gynecol 192(4):1341–1346. doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2004.12.069 discussion 1346–7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Nugent RP, Krohn MA, Hillier SL (1991) Reliability of diagnosing bacterial vaginosis is improved by a standardized method of gram stain interpretation. J Clin Microbiol 29(2):297–301

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Amsel R, Totten PA, Spiegel CA, Chen KC, Eschenbach D, Holmes KK (1983) Nonspecific vaginitis. Diagnostic criteria and microbial and epidemiologic associations. Am J Med 74(1):14–22. doi:10.1016/0002-9343(83)91112-9

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Gutman RE, Peipert JF, Weitzen S, Blume J (2005) Evaluation of clinical methods for diagnosing bacterial vaginosis. Obstet Gynecol 105(3):551–556

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Simoes JA, Discacciati MG, Brolazo EM, Portugal PM, Dini DV, Dantas MC (2006) Clinical diagnosis of bacterial vaginosis. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 94:28–32. doi:10.1016/j.ijgo.2006.04.013

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Yen S, Shafer MAB, Moncada J, Campbell CJ, Flinn SD, Boyer CB (2003) Bacterial vaginosis in sexually experienced and non-sexually experienced young women entering the military. Obstet Gynecol 102(5 Pt 1):927–933. doi:10.1016/S0029-7844(03)00858-5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Hogan VK, Culhane JF, Hitti J, Rauh VA, McCollum KF, Agnew KJ (2007) Relative performance of three methods for diagnosing bacterial vaginosis during pregnancy. Matern Child Health J 11(6):532–539. doi:10.1007/s10995-007-0205-4

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Koumans EH, Sternberg M, Bruce C, McQuillan G, Kendrick J, Sutton M et al (2007) The prevalence of bacterial vaginosis in the United States, 2001–2004; associations with symptoms, sexual behaviors, and reproductive health. Sex Transm Dis 34(11):864–869. doi:10.1097/OLQ.0b013e318074e565

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. http://www.cdc.gov/std/Trends2000/trichomoniasis.htm. Accessed 3 June 2008

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work is supported by the Akron General Development Foundation.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Karen M. Gil.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Rouse, A.G., Gil, K.M. & Davis, K. Diagnosis of bacterial vaginosis in the pregnant patient in an acute care setting. Arch Gynecol Obstet 279, 545–549 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-008-0766-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-008-0766-5

Keywords

Navigation