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.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
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
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
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
http://www.cdc.gov/std/bv/STDFact-Bacterial-Vaginosis.htm#pregnant. Accessed 7 May 2008
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
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
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
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
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
Gutman RE, Peipert JF, Weitzen S, Blume J (2005) Evaluation of clinical methods for diagnosing bacterial vaginosis. Obstet Gynecol 105(3):551–556
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
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
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
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
http://www.cdc.gov/std/Trends2000/trichomoniasis.htm. Accessed 3 June 2008
Acknowledgments
This work is supported by the Akron General Development Foundation.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights 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
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-008-0766-5