Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research, ISSN - 0973 - 709X

Users Online : 8597

AbstractMaterial and MethodsResultsDiscussionConclusionKey MessageAcknowledgementReferencesDOI and Others
Article in PDF How to Cite Citation Manager Readers' Comments (0) Audio Visual Article Statistics Link to PUBMED Print this Article Send to a Friend
Advertisers Access Statistics Resources

Dr Mohan Z Mani

"Thank you very much for having published my article in record time.I would like to compliment you and your entire staff for your promptness, courtesy, and willingness to be customer friendly, which is quite unusual.I was given your reference by a colleague in pathology,and was able to directly phone your editorial office for clarifications.I would particularly like to thank the publication managers and the Assistant Editor who were following up my article. I would also like to thank you for adjusting the money I paid initially into payment for my modified article,and refunding the balance.
I wish all success to your journal and look forward to sending you any suitable similar article in future"



Dr Mohan Z Mani,
Professor & Head,
Department of Dematolgy,
Believers Church Medical College,
Thiruvalla, Kerala
On Sep 2018




Prof. Somashekhar Nimbalkar

"Over the last few years, we have published our research regularly in Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research. Having published in more than 20 high impact journals over the last five years including several high impact ones and reviewing articles for even more journals across my fields of interest, we value our published work in JCDR for their high standards in publishing scientific articles. The ease of submission, the rapid reviews in under a month, the high quality of their reviewers and keen attention to the final process of proofs and publication, ensure that there are no mistakes in the final article. We have been asked clarifications on several occasions and have been happy to provide them and it exemplifies the commitment to quality of the team at JCDR."



Prof. Somashekhar Nimbalkar
Head, Department of Pediatrics, Pramukhswami Medical College, Karamsad
Chairman, Research Group, Charutar Arogya Mandal, Karamsad
National Joint Coordinator - Advanced IAP NNF NRP Program
Ex-Member, Governing Body, National Neonatology Forum, New Delhi
Ex-President - National Neonatology Forum Gujarat State Chapter
Department of Pediatrics, Pramukhswami Medical College, Karamsad, Anand, Gujarat.
On Sep 2018




Dr. Kalyani R

"Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research is at present a well-known Indian originated scientific journal which started with a humble beginning. I have been associated with this journal since many years. I appreciate the Editor, Dr. Hemant Jain, for his constant effort in bringing up this journal to the present status right from the scratch. The journal is multidisciplinary. It encourages in publishing the scientific articles from postgraduates and also the beginners who start their career. At the same time the journal also caters for the high quality articles from specialty and super-specialty researchers. Hence it provides a platform for the scientist and researchers to publish. The other aspect of it is, the readers get the information regarding the most recent developments in science which can be used for teaching, research, treating patients and to some extent take preventive measures against certain diseases. The journal is contributing immensely to the society at national and international level."



Dr Kalyani R
Professor and Head
Department of Pathology
Sri Devaraj Urs Medical College
Sri Devaraj Urs Academy of Higher Education and Research , Kolar, Karnataka
On Sep 2018




Dr. Saumya Navit

"As a peer-reviewed journal, the Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research provides an opportunity to researchers, scientists and budding professionals to explore the developments in the field of medicine and dentistry and their varied specialities, thus extending our view on biological diversities of living species in relation to medicine.
Knowledge is treasure of a wise man. The free access of this journal provides an immense scope of learning for the both the old and the young in field of medicine and dentistry as well. The multidisciplinary nature of the journal makes it a better platform to absorb all that is being researched and developed. The publication process is systematic and professional. Online submission, publication and peer reviewing makes it a user-friendly journal.
As an experienced dentist and an academician, I proudly recommend this journal to the dental fraternity as a good quality open access platform for rapid communication of their cutting-edge research progress and discovery.
I wish JCDR a great success and I hope that journal will soar higher with the passing time."



Dr Saumya Navit
Professor and Head
Department of Pediatric Dentistry
Saraswati Dental College
Lucknow
On Sep 2018




Dr. Arunava Biswas

"My sincere attachment with JCDR as an author as well as reviewer is a learning experience . Their systematic approach in publication of article in various categories is really praiseworthy.
Their prompt and timely response to review's query and the manner in which they have set the reviewing process helps in extracting the best possible scientific writings for publication.
It's a honour and pride to be a part of the JCDR team. My very best wishes to JCDR and hope it will sparkle up above the sky as a high indexed journal in near future."



Dr. Arunava Biswas
MD, DM (Clinical Pharmacology)
Assistant Professor
Department of Pharmacology
Calcutta National Medical College & Hospital , Kolkata




Dr. C.S. Ramesh Babu
" Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR) is a multi-specialty medical and dental journal publishing high quality research articles in almost all branches of medicine. The quality of printing of figures and tables is excellent and comparable to any International journal. An added advantage is nominal publication charges and monthly issue of the journal and more chances of an article being accepted for publication. Moreover being a multi-specialty journal an article concerning a particular specialty has a wider reach of readers of other related specialties also. As an author and reviewer for several years I find this Journal most suitable and highly recommend this Journal."
Best regards,
C.S. Ramesh Babu,
Associate Professor of Anatomy,
Muzaffarnagar Medical College,
Muzaffarnagar.
On Aug 2018




Dr. Arundhathi. S
"Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR) is a reputed peer reviewed journal and is constantly involved in publishing high quality research articles related to medicine. Its been a great pleasure to be associated with this esteemed journal as a reviewer and as an author for a couple of years. The editorial board consists of many dedicated and reputed experts as its members and they are doing an appreciable work in guiding budding researchers. JCDR is doing a commendable job in scientific research by promoting excellent quality research & review articles and case reports & series. The reviewers provide appropriate suggestions that improve the quality of articles. I strongly recommend my fraternity to encourage JCDR by contributing their valuable research work in this widely accepted, user friendly journal. I hope my collaboration with JCDR will continue for a long time".



Dr. Arundhathi. S
MBBS, MD (Pathology),
Sanjay Gandhi institute of trauma and orthopedics,
Bengaluru.
On Aug 2018




Dr. Mamta Gupta,
"It gives me great pleasure to be associated with JCDR, since last 2-3 years. Since then I have authored, co-authored and reviewed about 25 articles in JCDR. I thank JCDR for giving me an opportunity to improve my own skills as an author and a reviewer.
It 's a multispecialty journal, publishing high quality articles. It gives a platform to the authors to publish their research work which can be available for everyone across the globe to read. The best thing about JCDR is that the full articles of all medical specialties are available as pdf/html for reading free of cost or without institutional subscription, which is not there for other journals. For those who have problem in writing manuscript or do statistical work, JCDR comes for their rescue.
The journal has a monthly publication and the articles are published quite fast. In time compared to other journals. The on-line first publication is also a great advantage and facility to review one's own articles before going to print. The response to any query and permission if required, is quite fast; this is quite commendable. I have a very good experience about seeking quick permission for quoting a photograph (Fig.) from a JCDR article for my chapter authored in an E book. I never thought it would be so easy. No hassles.
Reviewing articles is no less a pain staking process and requires in depth perception, knowledge about the topic for review. It requires time and concentration, yet I enjoy doing it. The JCDR website especially for the reviewers is quite user friendly. My suggestions for improving the journal is, more strict review process, so that only high quality articles are published. I find a a good number of articles in Obst. Gynae, hence, a new journal for this specialty titled JCDR-OG can be started. May be a bimonthly or quarterly publication to begin with. Only selected articles should find a place in it.
An yearly reward for the best article authored can also incentivize the authors. Though the process of finding the best article will be not be very easy. I do not know how reviewing process can be improved. If an article is being reviewed by two reviewers, then opinion of one can be communicated to the other or the final opinion of the editor can be communicated to the reviewer if requested for. This will help ones reviewing skills.
My best wishes to Dr. Hemant Jain and all the editorial staff of JCDR for their untiring efforts to bring out this journal. I strongly recommend medical fraternity to publish their valuable research work in this esteemed journal, JCDR".



Dr. Mamta Gupta
Consultant
(Ex HOD Obs &Gynae, Hindu Rao Hospital and associated NDMC Medical College, Delhi)
Aug 2018




Dr. Rajendra Kumar Ghritlaharey

"I wish to thank Dr. Hemant Jain, Editor-in-Chief Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR), for asking me to write up few words.
Writing is the representation of language in a textual medium i e; into the words and sentences on paper. Quality medical manuscript writing in particular, demands not only a high-quality research, but also requires accurate and concise communication of findings and conclusions, with adherence to particular journal guidelines. In medical field whether working in teaching, private, or in corporate institution, everyone wants to excel in his / her own field and get recognised by making manuscripts publication.


Authors are the souls of any journal, and deserve much respect. To publish a journal manuscripts are needed from authors. Authors have a great responsibility for producing facts of their work in terms of number and results truthfully and an individual honesty is expected from authors in this regards. Both ways its true "No authors-No manuscripts-No journals" and "No journalsNo manuscriptsNo authors". Reviewing a manuscript is also a very responsible and important task of any peer-reviewed journal and to be taken seriously. It needs knowledge on the subject, sincerity, honesty and determination. Although the process of reviewing a manuscript is a time consuming task butit is expected to give one's best remarks within the time frame of the journal.
Salient features of the JCDR: It is a biomedical, multidisciplinary (including all medical and dental specialities), e-journal, with wide scope and extensive author support. At the same time, a free text of manuscript is available in HTML and PDF format. There is fast growing authorship and readership with JCDR as this can be judged by the number of articles published in it i e; in Feb 2007 of its first issue, it contained 5 articles only, and now in its recent volume published in April 2011, it contained 67 manuscripts. This e-journal is fulfilling the commitments and objectives sincerely, (as stated by Editor-in-chief in his preface to first edition) i e; to encourage physicians through the internet, especially from the developing countries who witness a spectrum of disease and acquire a wealth of knowledge to publish their experiences to benefit the medical community in patients care. I also feel that many of us have work of substance, newer ideas, adequate clinical materials but poor in medical writing and hesitation to submit the work and need help. JCDR provides authors help in this regards.
Timely publication of journal: Publication of manuscripts and bringing out the issue in time is one of the positive aspects of JCDR and is possible with strong support team in terms of peer reviewers, proof reading, language check, computer operators, etc. This is one of the great reasons for authors to submit their work with JCDR. Another best part of JCDR is "Online first Publications" facilities available for the authors. This facility not only provides the prompt publications of the manuscripts but at the same time also early availability of the manuscripts for the readers.
Indexation and online availability: Indexation transforms the journal in some sense from its local ownership to the worldwide professional community and to the public.JCDR is indexed with Embase & EMbiology, Google Scholar, Index Copernicus, Chemical Abstracts Service, Journal seek Database, Indian Science Abstracts, to name few of them. Manuscriptspublished in JCDR are available on major search engines ie; google, yahoo, msn.
In the era of fast growing newer technologies, and in computer and internet friendly environment the manuscripts preparation, submission, review, revision, etc and all can be done and checked with a click from all corer of the world, at any time. Of course there is always a scope for improvement in every field and none is perfect. To progress, one needs to identify the areas of one's weakness and to strengthen them.
It is well said that "happy beginning is half done" and it fits perfectly with JCDR. It has grown considerably and I feel it has already grown up from its infancy to adolescence, achieving the status of standard online e-journal form Indian continent since its inception in Feb 2007. This had been made possible due to the efforts and the hard work put in it. The way the JCDR is improving with every new volume, with good quality original manuscripts, makes it a quality journal for readers. I must thank and congratulate Dr Hemant Jain, Editor-in-Chief JCDR and his team for their sincere efforts, dedication, and determination for making JCDR a fast growing journal.
Every one of us: authors, reviewers, editors, and publisher are responsible for enhancing the stature of the journal. I wish for a great success for JCDR."



Thanking you
With sincere regards
Dr. Rajendra Kumar Ghritlaharey, M.S., M. Ch., FAIS
Associate Professor,
Department of Paediatric Surgery, Gandhi Medical College & Associated
Kamla Nehru & Hamidia Hospitals Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh 462 001 (India)
E-mail: drrajendrak1@rediffmail.com
On May 11,2011




Dr. Shankar P.R.

"On looking back through my Gmail archives after being requested by the journal to write a short editorial about my experiences of publishing with the Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR), I came across an e-mail from Dr. Hemant Jain, Editor, in March 2007, which introduced the new electronic journal. The main features of the journal which were outlined in the e-mail were extensive author support, cash rewards, the peer review process, and other salient features of the journal.
Over a span of over four years, we (I and my colleagues) have published around 25 articles in the journal. In this editorial, I plan to briefly discuss my experiences of publishing with JCDR and the strengths of the journal and to finally address the areas for improvement.
My experiences of publishing with JCDR: Overall, my experiences of publishing withJCDR have been positive. The best point about the journal is that it responds to queries from the author. This may seem to be simple and not too much to ask for, but unfortunately, many journals in the subcontinent and from many developing countries do not respond or they respond with a long delay to the queries from the authors 1. The reasons could be many, including lack of optimal secretarial and other support. Another problem with many journals is the slowness of the review process. Editorial processing and peer review can take anywhere between a year to two years with some journals. Also, some journals do not keep the contributors informed about the progress of the review process. Due to the long review process, the articles can lose their relevance and topicality. A major benefit with JCDR is the timeliness and promptness of its response. In Dr Jain's e-mail which was sent to me in 2007, before the introduction of the Pre-publishing system, he had stated that he had received my submission and that he would get back to me within seven days and he did!
Most of the manuscripts are published within 3 to 4 months of their submission if they are found to be suitable after the review process. JCDR is published bimonthly and the accepted articles were usually published in the next issue. Recently, due to the increased volume of the submissions, the review process has become slower and it ?? Section can take from 4 to 6 months for the articles to be reviewed. The journal has an extensive author support system and it has recently introduced a paid expedited review process. The journal also mentions the average time for processing the manuscript under different submission systems - regular submission and expedited review.
Strengths of the journal: The journal has an online first facility in which the accepted manuscripts may be published on the website before being included in a regular issue of the journal. This cuts down the time between their acceptance and the publication. The journal is indexed in many databases, though not in PubMed. The editorial board should now take steps to index the journal in PubMed. The journal has a system of notifying readers through e-mail when a new issue is released. Also, the articles are available in both the HTML and the PDF formats. I especially like the new and colorful page format of the journal. Also, the access statistics of the articles are available. The prepublication and the manuscript tracking system are also helpful for the authors.
Areas for improvement: In certain cases, I felt that the peer review process of the manuscripts was not up to international standards and that it should be strengthened. Also, the number of manuscripts in an issue is high and it may be difficult for readers to go through all of them. The journal can consider tightening of the peer review process and increasing the quality standards for the acceptance of the manuscripts. I faced occasional problems with the online manuscript submission (Pre-publishing) system, which have to be addressed.
Overall, the publishing process with JCDR has been smooth, quick and relatively hassle free and I can recommend other authors to consider the journal as an outlet for their work."



Dr. P. Ravi Shankar
KIST Medical College, P.O. Box 14142, Kathmandu, Nepal.
E-mail: ravi.dr.shankar@gmail.com
On April 2011
Anuradha

Dear team JCDR, I would like to thank you for the very professional and polite service provided by everyone at JCDR. While i have been in the field of writing and editing for sometime, this has been my first attempt in publishing a scientific paper.Thank you for hand-holding me through the process.


Dr. Anuradha
E-mail: anuradha2nittur@gmail.com
On Jan 2020

Important Notice

Original article / research
Year : 2011 | Month : June | Volume : 5 | Issue : 3 | Page : 498 - 501

Comparison of the methods of diagnosis of bacterial vaginosis

UDAYALAXMI, GOPALAKRISHNA BHAT, SUBBANNAYYA KOTIGADD, SHALINI SHENOY

PhD, Senior lecturer, Department of Microbiology, Kasturba Medical College, Manipal University, Mangalore, India. PhD, Associate professor, Department of Microbiology, Kasturba Medical College, Manipal University, Mangalore, India. PhD, Professor, Department of Microbiology, KVG Medical College, Sullia, India. MD, Professor, Department of Microbiology, Kasturba Medical College, Manipal University, Mangalore, India.

Correspondence Address :
Udayalaxmi
Senior grade lecturer, Department of Microbiology, Kasturba
Medical College, Manipal University, Mangalore-575001, India.
Tel: 091-0824-2423654 extn 5557 Fax: 091-0824-2428183
E-mail address: udayalaxmi68@gmail.com

Abstract

Background and Objective: Although Nugent’s criterion is considered as the gold standard, routinely a combination of various methods is used for the diagnosis of bacterial vaginosis. In the present study we compared culture, Spiegel’s criteria and Amsel’s criteria with Nugent’s method for the diagnosis of bacterial vaginosis.
Materials and Methods: Five hundred and twenty seven women who attended the Government Maternity Hospital and a tertiary care centre in south India for antenatal care or forany other complaint formed the study population. Diagnosis of bacterial vaginosis was done by culture, Amsel’s, Nugent’s and Spiegel’s criteria. The positive predictive value, the negative predictive value and the sensitivity and specificity of these methods,in comparison with Nugent’s criteria, by considering it as the gold standard, were calculated. Statistical analysis was doneby using the Chi Square test or the Fisher’s exact test as was appropriate.
Results: In comparison with Nugent’s criteria, the positive predictive value, negative predictive value and the sensitivity and specificity of Amsel’s criteria were 80.4%, 94.8%, 78% and 95.6% and that of Spiegel’s criteria were 77.5%, 100%, 100% and 93.2%. The culture was 51% sensitive and 88.7% specific, the positive predictive value was 85.5% and the negative predictive value was 58%. We diagnosed 100 (19%) casesof bacterial vaginosisby Nugent’s method,129 (24%) casesby Spiegel’s method,97 (18%) cases by Amsel’s criteria and 88 (16.7%) cases by culturing.
Conclusion: Amsel’s and Spiegel’s criteria were comparable with Nugent’s criteria for the diagnosis of bacterial vaginosis. Diagnosis of bacterial vaginosis by culture was least sensitive method.

Keywords

Amsel’s Criteria, Bacterial Vaginosis, Methods of Diagnosis, Nugent’s Criteria, Spiegel’s Criteria

Bacterial vaginosis is a common clinical condition in women of reproductive age(1).It represents a unique and complex change in the flora of the vagina, which is characterized by a reduction in the prevalence and the numbers of lactobacilli and an increase in the concentration of Gardnerella vaginalis and resident anaerobic bacteria (1). Most of the women are asymptomatic, but some women with bacterial vaginosis have a foul smelling, thin, homogeneous, frothy, vaginal discharge (1), (2). In addition to a nuisance infection, bacterial vaginosis can lead to a variety of obstetric and gynaecological complications such as preterm birth and pelvic inflammatory disease(PID) (1),(2). As it is just an overgrowth of the normal flora of the vagina without inflammation, there is no single best method for the diagnosis of bacterial vaginosis(1),(2). Most often, multiple criteria are used forthe diagnosis of bacterial vaginosis. One of the methods of diagnosis is the Amsel’s composite criteria which includes clinical diagnosis and a few simple laboratory tests(3).

Bacterial vaginosis can also be diagnosed by Spiegel’s and Nugent’s criteria (4). Both these criteria are based on the evaluation of the normal flora in the gram stained smears of the vaginal discharge. In the present study we have compared culture, Amsel’s criteria and Spiegel’s criteria with Nugent’s criteria considering it as gold standard for diagnosis of bacterial vaginosis.(5),(6).

Material and Methods

Five hundred and twenty seven women who attended two hospitals in south India for antenatal care or for the insertion or the removal of intrauterine contraceptive devices, with complaints of discharge, abdominal pain or any other complaint, formed the study population. This study had the approval of the institutional ethics committee.

Married women between the ages of 21 – 35 years and women with or without complaints of vaginal discharge were included. Women who were menstruating at the time of the specimen collection and women who were on medication for any bacterial, fungal, parasitic or viral infections for up to one month prior to the specimen collection, were excluded. A detailed clinical history of each woman was taken and their vaginal swabs were collected. The vaginal swabs were used for gram staining, for the determination of the pH of the vagina and for the whiff test and culture.Diagnosis of bacterial vaginosis was done by Nugent’s criteria, Amsel’s criteria, Spiegel’s criteria and by culture. The parameters that are necessary to decide the efficacy of the diagnostic tests, namely positive predictive value, negative predictive value and sensitivity and specificity were calculated in comparison with Nugent’s criteria by considering it as the gold standard. Statistical analysis was done by using the Chi Square test or the Fisher’s exact test as was appropriate.

Diagnosis by Amsel’s criteria
Amsel’s composite criteria includes the presence of a homogeneous vaginal discharge, pH of the vagina being > 4.5, the presence of clue cells in gram stained vaginal discharge smears and a positive whiff test. According to Amsel, if 3 of the 4 criteria are positive, the patient has bacterial vaginosis (3).

Vaginal pH determination: Vaginal secretions or discharge was collected from the lateral vaginal walls with a cotton swab and this was then transferred onto a strip of pH paper (Qualigens Fine Chemicals, India). This was compared with a standardized colourimetric reference chart to estimate the actual pH (4)(5)(6)(7). Whiff test: A drop of vaginal discharge was mixed with a drop of 10% potassium hydroxide which was taken on a slide. A fishy smell indicated a positive test (8).
Clue cells: The vaginal discharge was smeared on clean glass slides, air dried, heat fixed and stained by Gram’s method by using an acetone alcohol (1:1) mixture as a decolouriser and dilute carbol fuchsin as the counter stain. The vaginal epithelial cells which were completely covered by the gram variable coccobacilli so that their edges which normally have a sharply defined cell border became indistinct or stippled, were considered as the clue cells (9) (Table/Fig 1).

Diagnosis by culture
The vaginal swabs were inoculated on appropriate culture media and incubated at 37˚C for 24 to 48 hrs. For the isolation of aerobes and facultative anaerobes, Columbia blood agarand Mac Conkey’s agar were used (10). For the isolation of G.vaginalis, Columbia human blood bilayer agar with Tween 80 and a G.vaginalis selective supplement were used (11). These plates were incubated in a candle jar with a piece of wet, sterile cotton placed in it, to provide a humid environment. For anaerobes, Columbia laked human blood agar with a neomycin supplement was used (12). These plates were incubated in an Anaero Hi Gas Pack TM anaerobic jar (Hi Media Laboratories, Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai, India). Aerobes, facultative anaerobes and obligate anaerobes were identified by their colony morphologies, gram staining and standard biochemical reactions (10), (12). All media, reagents and discs were obtained from Hi Media Laboratories, Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai. Those women of whom the culture showed predominant growth of G.vaginalis or an anaerobe or both were considered as positive for bacterial vaginosis by culture (2).

Diagnosis by Nugent’s criteria
Each bacterial morphotype was quantitated under an oil immersion objective (l000 x) by using the following scheme: 1+,<1 per field; 2+, 1 to 5 per field; 3+, 6 to 30 per field; 4+, >30 per field. Large gram-positive rods were taken as lactobacillus morphotypes; small gram-negative to gram-variable rods were considered as G.vaginalis and Bacteroides spp. morphotypes; curved gram-variable rods were considered as Mobiluncus spp. morphotypes. The scoring was done as shown in (Table/Fig 2). These scores were added up to yield a final score of 0 to 7 or more. The criterion for bacterial vaginosis was a score of 7 or higher; a score of 4 to 6 was considered as intermediate, and a score of 0 to 3 was considered as normal (3),(4),(5).

Diagnosis by Spiegel’s criteria
When the gram staining showed predominance (3 to 4+) of the lactobacillus morphotype with or without the Gardnerella morphotype, it was interpreted as normal. When the gram staining showed a mixed flora consisting of gram-positive, gram negative, or gram-variable bacteria and the lactobacillus morphotype was decreased or absent (0 to 2+), the gram staining was interpreted as consistent with bacterial vaginosis (4).

Results

The results of the diagnosis of bacterial vaginosis done by Amsel’s criteria, culture, Nugent’s criteria and Spiegel’s criteria are shown in (Table/Fig 3). We diagnosed 100 (19%) cases of bacterial vaginosis by Nugent’s method,129 (24%) cases by Spiegel’s method, 97 (18%) cases by Amsel’s criteria and 88 (16.7%) cases by culture. In comparison with Nugent’s criteria, the positive predictive value, negative predictive value and the sensitivity and specificity of Amsel’s criteria were 80.4%, 94.8%,78% and 95.6% and that of Spiegel’s criteria were 77.5%, 100%, 100% and 93.2%. The culture was 51% sensitive and 88.7% specific, the positive predictive value was 85.5% and the negative predictive value was 58%. Statistical analysis showed that all the 4 methods could be used as a means for the diagnosis of bacterial vaginosis (p< 0.01)

Discussion

We conducted a study on 100 cases of bacterial vaginosis which were diagnosed by the gold standard method of Nugent’s criteria (5),(6). It classifies gram stained vaginal smears into normal, intermediate and bacterial vaginosis based on the gram stain scoring system. The standardized score had an improved inter center reliability as compared to Spiegel’s criteria which divided thegram stained vaginal smears into only 2 categories,namely, normal or bacterial vaginosis (4),(5),(6). In a previous study where women with intermediate flora were followed up for 3 months, some of them developed bacterial vaginosis, some continued to have an intermediate vaginal flora and some reverted to the normal flora patterns(13). So, it is evident that women with intermediate flora must be considered separately. Hence, Spiegel’s criteria which divides women into only 2 categories, namely, bacterial vaginosis and normal flora, is not as popular as Nugent’s method. There are many studies which have tried to formulate better gram stain scoring systems, but these are not as popular as Nugent’s method of the diagnosis of bacterial vaginosis(14),(15).

Previous studies have shown that the diagnosis of bacterial vaginosis by Amsel’s criteria wasless sensitive than the gram stain interpretation(3),(16). This low sensitivity may be because many cases of bacterial vaginosis are asymptomatic. In the present study, Amsel’s method was found to be 78% sensitive and 95.6% specific as compared to Nugent’s method. The diagnosis by Amsel’s criteria requires a minimum of 3 to 5 vaginal swabs from each patient(3),(16). It has been observed that routinely, only a single swab was sent to the laboratory to rule out bacterial vaginosis in the hospitals where the study was carried out. This might be the reason why the diagnosis of bacterial vaginosis by Amsel’s criteria was unpopular at these places. But Amsel’s method is very popular as a means of diagnosis of bacterial vaginosis in every research paper on bacterial vaginosis (3),(4),(6).

Culture is the gold standard method for diagnosis of most of the bacterial diseases; however, culture cannot become the gold standard for diagnosis of bacterial vaginosis as the organisms which are involved in bacterial vaginosis cannot be isolated in the laboratory easily and as normal women also have this flora in their vagina in small numbers.

The rate of bacterial vaginosis, when diagnosed by Nugent’s scoring system, was 19%. Indian studies which were conducted on the general population, have shown a similar prevalence(2),(17). Hospital based studies tend to over report the cases of bacterial vaginosis, as they invariably collect vaginal swabs from women with vaginal discharges. Even if this wasa hospital based study, it simulated the general population due to the large sample size. Our study population consisted of women who attended these hospitals for the routine antenatal check up or some other routine problems, irrespective of whether they had abnormal discharges or not. Most of the women were asymptomatic or had not noticedthe abnormal discharge or foul smell. This might be the reason why under routine circumstances, bacterial vaginosis goes undiagnosed(18),(19).

Conclusion

Amsel’s and Spiegel’s criteria were comparable with Nugent’s criteria for the diagnosis of bacterial vaginosis. Diagnosis of bacterial vaginosis by culture was least sensitive method.

Key Message

1. Amsel’s and Spiegel’s criteria were comparable with Nugent’s criteria for the diagnosis of bacterial vaginosis. 2. Diagnosis of bacterial vaginosis by culture was least sensitive method.

Acknowledgement

The authors are grateful to Manipal University for providing the facilities to perform the study. We are grateful to the clinicians working in the obstetrics and gynecology departments of the hospitals which were included in the study, for helping with the sample collection. We are also grateful to the statistician, Mr. Shashidhar Kotian, Associate Professor, Department of Community Medicine, Kasturba Medical College, Mangalore, Manipal University, for helping us with the statistics.

References

1.
Sobel JD. Bacterial vaginosis. Annu Rev Med 2000;51:349-56.
2.
Rao PS, Devi S, Shriyan A, Rajaram M, Jagdishchandra K. Diagnosis of bacterial vaginosis in a rural set up: comparison of clinical algorithm, smear scoring and culture by semiquantitative technique. Indian J Med Microbiol2004;22(1):47-50.
3.
Dadhwal V, Hariprasad R, Mittal S, Kapil A. Prevalence of bacterial vaginosis in pregnant women and predictive value of clinical diagnosis. Arch GynecolObstet 2009, [Epub ahead of print]
4.
Honest H, Bachmann LM, Knox EM, Gupta JK, Kleijnen J, Khan KS. The accuracy of various tests for bacterial vaginosis in predicting preterm birth: a systematic review. BJOG. 2004;111(5):409-22.
5.
Mohanty S, Sood S, Kapil A, Mittal S. Interobserver variation in the interpretation of Nugent scoring method for diagnosis of bacterial vaginosis.Indian J Med Res 2010;131:88-91.
6.
Demba E, Morison L, MaartemSchim VDL, et al. Bacterial vaginosis, vaginal flora patterns and vaginal hygiene practices in patients presenting with vaginal discharge syndrome in the Gambia, West Africa. BMC Infect Dis2005;5:12-24.
7.
Ferris DG, Francis SL, Dickman ED, Miler-Miles K, Waller JL, McClendon N. Variability of vaginal pH determination by patients and clinicians.J Am Board Fam Med.2006; 19:368-73.
8.
Cohrssen A, Anderson M, Merrill A, McKee D.Reliability of the whiff test in clinical practice. J Am Board FamPract. 2005;18:561-2.
9.
Silonie S. Clue cell. Indian J DermatolVenerolLeprol. 2006; 72: 392 – 3.
10.
Collee JG, Miles RS. Tests for identification of bacteria. In Mackie and McCartney Practical Medical Microbiology, 13th ed.Collee JG, Fraser AG, Duguid JP, Marmion BP (eds) Edinburg: Churchill Livingstone 1989; pp141-160.
11.
Betty AF, Daniel FS, Alice SW. Non branching catalase negative, gram positive bacilli. In Bailey and Scott’s Diagnostic Microbiology, 12th ed. Betty AF, Daniel FS, Alice SW (eds) St. Louis, Missouri: Mosby Elsevier. 2007; pp 305-6.
12.
Betty AF, Daniel FS, Alice SW. Laboratory considerations. In Bailey and Scott’s Diagnostic Microbiology, 12th ed. Betty AF, Daniel FS, Alice SW (eds) St. Louis, Missouri: Morby Elsevier 2007;pp 463-77.
13.
Hillier SL, Krohn MA, Nugent RP Gibbs RS. Characteristics of three vaginal flora patterns assessed by Gram stain among pregnant women. AmJ ObstetGynecol1992;166:938-44.
14.
Ison CA, Hay PE. Validation of a simplified grading of Gram stained vaginal smears for use in genitourinary medicine clinics. Sex Transm Infect2002;78:413-15.
15.
Verhelst R, Verstraelen H, Claeys G, Verschraegen G, Van Simaey L, De Ganck C et al.Comparison between Gram stain and culture for the characterization of vaginal microflora: Definition of a distinct grade that resembles grade I microflora and revised categorization of grade I microflora. BMC Microbiol2005;5:61–72.
16.
Beverly ES, Hua YC, Qiong JW, Zariffard MR, Mardge HC, Gregory TS. Utility of Amsel Criteria, Nugent Score, and Quantitative PCR for Gardnerellavaginalis, Mycoplasma hominis, and Lactobacillus spp. For Diagnosis of Bacterial Vaginosis in Human Immunodeficiency Virus-Infected Women. J ClinMicrobiol2005;43:4607–12.
17.
Madhivanan P, Krupp K, Chandrasekaran V, Karat C, Arun A, Cohen CR, et al. Prevalence and correlates of bacterial vaginosis among young women of reproductive age in Mysore, India. Indian J Med Microbiol 2008;26:132–7.
18.
Purwar M, Agarwal V, Bhagat B. Bacterial vaginosis in early pregnancy and adverse pregnancy outcome. J ObstetGynecnol Res 2001; 27:175– 81.
19.
Lin KW, LoBrano MB. Screening for bacterial vaginosis in pregnancy to prevent preterm delivery.Am Fam Physician 2009;79:697-8.

DOI and Others

JCDR/2011/1333

JCDR is now Monthly and more widely Indexed .
  • Emerging Sources Citation Index (Web of Science, thomsonreuters)
  • Index Copernicus ICV 2017: 134.54
  • Academic Search Complete Database
  • Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ)
  • Embase
  • EBSCOhost
  • Google Scholar
  • HINARI Access to Research in Health Programme
  • Indian Science Abstracts (ISA)
  • Journal seek Database
  • Google
  • Popline (reproductive health literature)
  • www.omnimedicalsearch.com