DiagnosticValueof Amsel’sClinicalCriteriafor Diagnosis of Bacterial Vaginosis

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 Lecturer, Faculty of Nursing & Midwifery, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran.

2 M.Sc. in Midwifery, Mashhad, Iran

3 Assistant Professor of Microbiology, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran

Abstract

Introduction:Vaginitis is the most prevalent gynecological complaint for which women seek medical treatment. Amongst different methods of diagnosis of bacterial vaginosis Amsel`s clinical criteria and Nugent scoring is of the most preferentiality. The aim of this study is to evaluate the diagnostic values of whole Amsel`s clinical criteria, each of Amsel`s criterion solitarily and combination of two criteria, respectively, for diagnosis of bacterial vaginosis.
Methods: This study is carried out on 105 women referring to gynecologic clinic of 17-Shahrivar Hospital (Mashhad, Iran, 2006-2007) who underwent speculum examination and were qualified to enroll in study. The Nugent scoring system was used as the gold standard method for diagnosis of bacterial vaginosis. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value of whole Amsel`s clinical criteria, each of Amsel`s criterion solitarily and combination of two criteria for the diagnosis of bacterial vaginosis were determined according to the aimed standard.
Results: Among Amsel’s clinical criteria, the most sensitive individual criterion was clue cells (96.9%) and the criterion with the highest specificity was Whiff test (80.8%). PH plus clue cells and clue cells plus vaginal discharge were the most sensitive coupled combinations (84.4%), whereas the combination of clue cells and Whiff test was of the highest specificity (89%).
Conclusion: The clinical criteria for the diagnosis of bacterial vaginosis can be simplified into two clinical criteria with no considerable decline in their sensitivity and specificity.

Keywords

References

1. Berek J. Berek & Novak gynecology. 14th ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2007. p .542-3.
2. Ryan KJ, Berkowitz RS, Barbieri RL. Gynecologic infections. In: Kistner RW, editor. Kistner's Gynecology:
principles and practice. 6th ed. St. Louis: Mosby-Year Book; 1995. p. 496-531.
3. Wang J. Bacterial Vaginosis. Int J Gynecol Obstet 2000;7(5):181-5.
4. Varney H, Kliebs J. Varney Midwifery. 4th ed. USA: Jones & Bartlet; 2004. p. 445-7.
5. Cunningham FG, Leveno K, Bloom S, Hauth J. Williams obstetrics. 22th ed. USA: McGraw-Hill; 2005.
p.1319-20.
6. Anukam KC, Osazuwa E, Osemene GI, Ehigiagbe F, Bruce AW, Reid G . Clinical study comparing
probiotic Lactobacillus GR-1 and RC-14 with metronidazole vaginal gel to treat symptomatic bacterial
vaginosis. Microbes Infect 2006; 8(12-13):2772-6.
7. Drife J, Magowan B. Clinical Obstetrics and Gynecology. 1st ed .USA: WB Saunders; 2004. p .200.
8. Hay P. Current bacterial vaginosis.Curr Opin Infect Dis 2009;22(1):82-6.
9. Bates S. Vaginal discharge. Curr Obstet Gynaecol 2003;13:218- 23.
10. Debora F, Kimberlin W. Bacterial vaginosis association with adverse pregnancy outcome. Semin Perinatol
2004; 22(4):242-50.
11. Eckert LO. Acute vulvovaginitis. N Engl J Med 2006;355(12):1244-52.
12. Fishers L. Guidance for industry bacterial vaginosis - developing antimicrobial drugs for treatment. [Online].
2001 July 1; [cited 2008 March] Available from:
URL: http://www.fda.gov/cder/guidance /index.htm
13. Olds S, London M, Davidson M. Maternal-newborn nursing & women’s health care. New Jersey:
Pearson Prentice Hall; 2004. p. 142.
14. Beckmann CH, Ling F, Smith R, Barzansky B. Obstetrics and gynecology. 5th ed. Philadelphia:
Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2006. p. 269-70.
15. Hilmarsdóttir I, Hauksdóttir GS, Jóhannesdóttir JD, Daníelsdóttir T, Thorsteinsdóttir H, Olafsson JH.
Evaluation of a Rapid Gram Stain Interpretation Method for Diagnosis of Bacterial Vaginosis.
J Clin Microbiol 2006; 44(3):1139-40.
16. Simoes JA, Discacciati V, Brolaz EM. Clinical diagnosis of bacterial vaginosis. Int J Gynecol Obstet
2006;94(1):28-32.
17. Mastrobattista J, Bishop K. Wet smear compared with Gram stain diagnosis of bacterial vaginosis in
asymptomatic pregnant women. J Obstet Gynecol 2000; 96:504-6.
18. Moussavi Z, Behrouzi R. Diagnostic Amsel criteria compared standardized method of Gram stain for the
diagnosis of bacterial vaginosis. Int Congr Ser 2004;1271:392-5.
19. Zarakula P, Hodoglugil N, Tosun I. Reliability of interpretation of Gram-stained vaginal smears by
Nugent’s scoring system for diagnosis of bacterial vaginosis. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 2004;48:77-80.
20. Gutman R, Peipert J, Weitzen SH, Blume J. Evaluation of clinical methods for diagnosing bacterial
vaginosis. Am Coll Obset Gynecol 2005;105(3):551- 6.
21. Chaijareenont K, Sirimai K, Boriboonhirunsarn D. Accuracy of Nugent score and each Amsel criteria in
the diagnosis of bacterial vaginosis. J Med Assoc Thai 2004;87(11):1270 -4. 

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics