This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citation map  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Citing articles on ISI (29)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Related article  • Similar articles in JAMA  Topic Collections  • Bacterial Infections  • Women's Health  • Women's Health, Other  • Diagnosis  • The Rational Clinical Examination  • Infectious Diseases  • Alert me on articles by topic  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Matthew R. Anderson, MD, MS; Kathleen Klink, MD; Andreas Cohrssen, MD

JAMA. 2004;291:1368-1379.

Context  Vaginal symptoms are one of the most common reasons for gynecological consultation. Clinicians have traditionally diagnosed vaginal candidiasis, bacterial vaginosis, and vaginal trichomoniasis using some combination of physical examination, pH, the wet mount, and the whiff test.

Objectives  To evaluate the role of the clinical examination and determine the positive and negative likelihood ratios (LRs) for the diagnosis of vaginal candidiasis, bacterial vaginosis, and vaginal trichomoniasis.

Data Sources  Using a structured literature review, we abstracted information on sensitivity and specificity for symptoms, signs, and office laboratory procedures. We chose published (1966 to April 2003) articles that appeared in the MEDLINE database and were indexed under the combined search terms of diagnosis with vaginitis, vaginal discharge, candidiasis, bacterial vaginosis, and trichomoniasis.

Study Selection  Included studies of symptomatic premenopausal women seen in primary care settings. Tests were evaluated only if they would provide diagnostic information during the office visit and were compared with an acceptable criterion standard.

Data Extraction  All 3 authors extracted the data and computed sensitivity and specificity from each article independently. The absence of standard definitions for symptoms and signs made it impossible to combine results across studies.

Data Synthesis  Symptoms alone do not allow clinicians to distinguish confidently between the causes of vaginitis. However, a patient's lack of itching makes candidiasis less likely (range of LRs, 0.18 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 0.05-0.70] to 0.79 [95% CI, 0.72-0.87]) and lack of perceived odor makes bacterial vaginosis unlikely (LR, 0.07 [95% CI, 0.01-0.51]). Similarly, physical examination signs are limited in their diagnostic power. The presence of inflammatory signs is associated with candidiasis (range of LRs, 2.1 [95% CI, 1.5-2.8] to 8.4 [95% CI, 2.3-31]). Presence of a "high cheese" odor on examination is predictive of bacterial vaginosis (LR, 3.2 [95% CI, 2.1-4.7]) while lack of odor is associated with candidiasis (LR, 2.9 [95% CI, 2.4-5.0]). Office laboratory tests, particularly microscopy of vaginal discharge, are the most useful way of diagnosing these 3 conditions.

Conclusions  The cause of vaginal complaints may be easily diagnosed when typical findings appear in microscopy. However, the poor performance of individual symptoms, signs, and office laboratory tests often makes it problematic to identify the cause of vaginal symptoms.

Author Affiliations: Department of Family and Social Medicine, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, NY (Dr Anderson), Center for Family Medicine in the College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University, New York, NY (Dr Klink), Department of Family Practice, Beth Israel Medical Center/The Institute for Urban Family Health, New York, NY (Dr Cohrssen).

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati     What's this?

RELATED ARTICLE

Vaginal Symptoms
Sharon Parmet, Cassio Lynm, and Richard M. Glass
JAMA. 2004;291(11):1406.
EXTRACT | FULL TEXT  

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

Phenotypic characterization and genomic DNA polymorphisms of Escherichia coli strains isolated as the sole micro-organism from vaginal infections
Lobos and Padilla
Microbiology 2009;155:825-830.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Acute Vulvovaginitis
Eckert
NEJM 2006;355:1244-1252.
FULL TEXT  

Evaluation of a rapid gram stain interpretation method for diagnosis of bacterial vaginosis.
Hilmarsdottir et al.
J. Clin. Microbiol. 2006;44:1139-1140.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Utility of Amsel Criteria, Nugent Score, and Quantitative PCR for Gardnerella vaginalis, Mycoplasma hominis, and Lactobacillus spp. for Diagnosis of Bacterial Vaginosis in Human Immunodeficiency Virus-Infected Women
Sha et al.
J. Clin. Microbiol. 2005;43:4607-4612.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Review: vaginal signs and symptoms perform poorly in diagnosing vaginal candidiasis, bacterial vaginosis, and vaginal trichomoniasis
Doust
Evid. Based Med. 2004;9:153-153.
FULL TEXT  

Other articles noted: 06 Feb 2004 to 16 Apr 2004
Evid. Based Nurs. 2004;7:e3-e3.
FULL TEXT