Comparison of two microscopic interpretations of vaginal microbiota with molecular profiling

Página do item simplificado
dc.contributor.authorDurski, Mariana
dc.contributor.authorRavel, Jacques
dc.contributor.authorSpautz, Ana C.P.G.
dc.contributor.authorCarvalho, Newton S.
dc.contributor.authorSilva, Márcia G. [UNESP]
dc.contributor.authorMarconi, Camila [UNESP]
dc.contributor.institutionUniversidade Federal do Paraná (UFPR)
dc.contributor.institutionUniversity of Maryland School of Medicine
dc.contributor.institutionUniversidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)
dc.date.accessioned2023-03-01T20:53:51Z
dc.date.available2023-03-01T20:53:51Z
dc.date.issued2022-09-01
dc.description.abstractObjective: To compare the diagnosis of bacterial vaginosis (BV) by Nugent scoring criteria (Nugent-BV) and the diagnosis of BV and/or aerobic vaginitis (AV) using Donders criteria (Donders-BV/AV) for identifying Molecular-BV detected by bacterial 16s rRNA profiling. Methods: We enrolled 512 women of reproductive age in Brazil with data available on Nugent and Donders microscopic analysis and 16S rRNA sequencing. We constructed receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves of Nugent-BV and Donders-BV/AV and calculated their area under the curves (AUCs) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for matching Molecular-BV. Results: A total of 155 (28.7%) participants were positive for Nugent-BV. Donders-BV and -AV were detected in 90 (17.6%) and 75 (14.6%) participants, respectively, while 28 (5.5%) had concurrent Donders-BV and -AV. Molecular-BV was identified in 139 (27.1%) participants. Analysis of ROC curves showed that diagnosis of Nugent-BV more accurately aligned with presence of Molecular-BV (AUC: 0.88, 95% CI: 0.84–0.91) when compared to Donders-AV/BV (AUC: 0.84; CI: 0.80–0.87) (P = 0.005). Conclusion: The use of Nugent-BV is more representative of Molecular-BV than Donders-AV/BV.en
dc.description.affiliationPrograma de Pós-Graduação em Tocoginecologia e Saúde da Mulher University of Paraná (UFPR), Paraná
dc.description.affiliationInstitute for Genome Sciences Department of Microbiology and Immunology University of Maryland School of Medicine
dc.description.affiliationUniversity of Paraná (UFPR) Sector of Medical Sciences Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Paraná
dc.description.affiliationSão Paulo State University (UNESP) Botucatu Medical School Department of Pathology, São Paulo
dc.description.affiliationFederal University of Paraná (UFPR) Sector of Biological Sciences Department of Basic Pathology, Paraná
dc.description.affiliationUnespSão Paulo State University (UNESP) Botucatu Medical School Department of Pathology, São Paulo
dc.description.sponsorshipFundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP)
dc.description.sponsorshipIdFAPESP: 2012/10403-2
dc.description.sponsorshipIdFAPESP: 2012/16800-3
dc.description.sponsorshipIdFAPESP: 2014/22463-5
dc.identifierhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.diagmicrobio.2022.115728
dc.identifier.citationDiagnostic Microbiology and Infectious Disease, v. 104, n. 1, 2022.
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.diagmicrobio.2022.115728
dc.identifier.issn1879-0070
dc.identifier.issn0732-8893
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-85133154338
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11449/241255
dc.language.isoeng
dc.relation.ispartofDiagnostic Microbiology and Infectious Disease
dc.sourceScopus
dc.subject16S rRNA gene
dc.subjectaerobic vaginitis
dc.subjectbacterial vaginosis
dc.subjectmicroscopy
dc.subjectmolecular diagnostics
dc.subjectvaginal microbiota
dc.titleComparison of two microscopic interpretations of vaginal microbiota with molecular profilingen
dc.typeArtigo
unesp.author.orcid0000-0003-0543-3895[1]
unesp.author.orcid0000-0001-7742-1186 0000-0001-7742-1186 0000-0001-7742-1186[6]

Arquivos

Coleções

Artigos - Patologia - FMB