This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citation map  • Citing articles on Web of Science (17)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in JAMA  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Joseph G. Lossick, DO, MS

JAMA. 1988;259(8):1230.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

For many decades, clinicians worldwide have used direct microscopic examination of vaginal wet-mount preparations to identify Trichomonas vaginalis infections and have unquestioningly treated patients for this sexually transmitted infection solely on the basis of Papanicolaou-stained cervical smear reports. In this issue of THE JOURNAL, Krieger et al¹ have raised questions about the accuracy of these procedures. In a patient population with a Trichomonas prevalence of 15%, they found that the vaginal wet mount unerringly detected only 60% of the T vaginalis infections. Papanicolaou smears were positive or suspicious for trichomonads in 63% of the infections, but 31% of the time they falsely identified infection when it was absent. These findings corroborate the findings of other investigators who have reported poor sensitivity with the wet mount (60%)^2-5 or who have documented false-positive Papanicolaou findings in the absence of other evidence of T vaginalis infection.^3,6,7

See also p 1223. . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

Author Affiliations
Centers for Disease Control Atlanta

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