Journals / Sağlık Bilimlerinde Değer / 2020 / Cilt: 10 Sayı: 1

Comparison of Vulvovaginal Infection Diagnostic Methods and Effects of Predisposing Factors Vulvovaginal Infections

Vulvovajinal Enfeksiyon Tanı Yöntemlerinin Karşılaştırılması ve Predispozan Faktörlerin Etkilerinin İncelenmesi

Pages
52–57
Publication Date
2020-01-31
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

In order to get more reliable results, direct examination, culture and Gram staining should be applied, addition to patient’s clinical condition and epidemiology.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Aim: The most important microbial factors that are caused vulvovaginal infections, are Candida species, Trichomonas vaginalis, Gardnerella vaginalis, enterobacteria, staphylococci, enterococci and group B streptococci.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The aim of this study is to determine the prevalence of the infection and the effects of predisposing factors by comparing the methods used in the diagnosis of vulvovaginal infections.Material and Methods: A total of 300 female patients between the ages of 18-60 were included in this study.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:In order to get more reliable results, direct examination, culture and Gram staining should be applied, addition to patient’s clinical condition and epidemiology.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Vulvovajinal enfeksiyon · trichomonas vaginalis · bakteriyel vajinoz

Abstract

Aim: The most important microbial factors that are caused vulvovaginal infections, are Candida species, Trichomonas vaginalis, Gardnerella vaginalis, enterobacteria, staphylococci, enterococci and group B streptococci. The aim of this study is to determine the prevalence of the infection and the effects of predisposing factors by comparing the methods used in the diagnosis of vulvovaginal infections.Material and Methods: A total of 300 female patients between the ages of 18-60 were included in this study. For the diagnosis of T. vaginalis, bacterial vaginosis and Candida species, direct examination, Gram and Giemsa stain, culture methods were used.Results: Bacterial vaginosis was found in 35.3%, T.vaginalis in 28.3%, Candida spp. in 28%. Gram stain method was taken as the reference test for the bacterial vaginosis sensitivity of direct examination was found 72.6%. Direct examination method was taken as the reference test for the T. vaginalis sensitivity of Gram stain was found 95.3% and Giemsa stain 68.2%. Culture method was taken as the reference test for the Candida species sensitivity of direct examination was found 42.9% and Gram stain 60.7%; specificity was found to be 100% for all methods. C.albicans was found the most common type of Candida. It was determined that not using prevention method was a risk factor for T. vaginalis infection. Conclusion: We think that none of the tests are sufficient alone in the diagnosis of vulvovaginal infections when the sensitivity and specificity of the methods are considered. In order to get more reliable results, direct examination, culture and Gram staining should be applied, addition to patient’s clinical condition and epidemiology.

Özet

Amaç: Vulvovajinal enfeksiyonlara sebep olan en önemli mikrobiyal etkenler Candida türleri, Trichomonas vaginalis, Gardnerella vaginalis, enterobakteriler, stafilokoklar, enterokoklar ve B grubu streptokoklardır. Bu çalışmanın amacı vulvovajinal enfeksiyonların tanısında kullanılan yöntemleri karşılaştırarak, enfeksiyon prevalansını ve predispozan faktörlerin etkilerini belirlemektir.Gereç ve Yöntemler: Bu çalışmaya yaşları 18-60 arasında değişen 300 kadın hasta dahil edildi. T. vaginalis, bakteriyel vajinoz ve Candida türleri tanıları için direkt bakı, Gram ve Giemsa boya, kültür yöntemleri kullanıldı.Bulgular: Hastaların %35,3’ünde bakteriyel vajinoz, %28,3’ünde T. vaginalis, %28’inde Candida türleri saptandı. Bakteriyel vajinoz için Gram boya yöntemi referans test olarak alındığında direkt bakının duyarlılığı %72,6, T. vaginalis için direkt bakı yöntemi referans test olarak alındığında Gram boyanın duyarlılığı %95,3; Giemsa boyanın duyarlılığı %68,2, Candida türleri için kültür yöntemi referans test olarak alındığında direkt bakının duyarlılığı %42,9; Gram boyanın duyarlılığı %60,7 olarak belirlenmiştir. Özgüllükleri ise tüm yöntemler için %100 olarak bulundu. C. albicans en fazla saptanan Candida türüydü. Korunma yöntemi kullanmamanın T. vaginalis enfeksiyonu için risk faktörü olduğu belirlendi. Sonuç: Vulvovajinal enfeksiyonların tanısında tanı yöntemlerinin duyarlılık ve özgüllükleri dikkate alındığında, hiçbir testin tek başına yeterli olmadığını düşünmekteyiz. Hastaya ait epidemiyolojik ve klinik bulguların yanı sıra, direkt bakı, Gram boya ve kültür yöntemlerinin bir arada uygulanmasının daha güvenilir sonuç vereceği kanısındayız.

🔖

Cite This Article

ALBAYRAK, H. T., ALBAYRAK, A. M., BAKIR, A., ŞAHİN, İ. (2020). Comparison of Vulvovaginal Infection Diagnostic Methods and Effects of Predisposing Factors Vulvovaginal Infections. Sağlık Bilimlerinde Değer, Cilt: 10 Sayı: 1, 52–57. https://ajindex.com/articles/904300

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (1)

  1. Referans1. Lowe NK, Neal JL, Ryan-Wenger NA. Accuracy of the clinical diagnosis of vaginitis compared to a DNA probe laboratory standard. Obstetrics and gynecology. 2009;113(1);89. Referans2. Anderson MR, Klink K, Cohrssen A. Evaluation of vaginal complaints. Jama. 2004;291(11);1368-79. Referans3. Livengood III CH, Thomason JL, Hill GB. Bacterial vaginosis= diagnostic and pathogenetic findings during topical clindamycin therapy. American journal of obstetrics and gynecology. 1990;163(2);515-20. Referans4. Ness RB, Hillier SL, Kip KE, Soper DE, Stamm CA, McGregor JA, et al. Bacterial vaginosis and risk of pelvic inflammatory disease. Obstetrics & Gynecology. 2004;104(4);761-9. Referans5. Hainer BL, Gibson MV. Vaginitis= diagnosis and treatment. American family physician. 2011;83(7). Referans6. Amsel R, Totten PA, Spiegel CA, Chen KC, Eschenbach D, Holmes KK. Nonspecific vaginitis: diagnostic criteria and microbial and epidemiologic associations. The American journal of medicine. 1983;74(1);14-22. Referans7. Nugent RP, Krohn MA, Hillier SL. (1991). Reliability of diagnosing bacterial vaginosis is improved by a standardized method of Gram stain interpretation. J Clin Microbiol. 29; 297–301. Referans8. Akdemir C, Keskin N, Çoksüer H. Kütahya’da vajinal akintili olgularda Trichomonas Vaginalis görülme sikliğinin klasik mikroskobi ve DNA hibridizasyon yöntemleriyle araştirilmasi. Türk Hijyen Ve Deneysel Biyoloji Dergisi. 2010;161. Referans9. Wiese W, Patel SR, Patel SC, Ohl CA, Estrada CA. A meta-analysis of the Papanicolaou smear and wet mount for the diagnosis of vaginal trichomoniasis. The American journal of medicine. 2000;108(4);301-8. Referans10. Corsello S, Spinillo A, Osnengo G, Penna C, Guaschino S, Beltrame A, et al. An epidemiological survey of vulvovaginal candidiasis in Italy. European journal of obstetrics & gynecology and reproductive biology. 2003;110(1);66-72. Referans11. Sobel JD. Vulvovaginal candidosis. The Lancet. 2007;369(9577);1961-71. Referans12. Buscemi L, Arechavala A, Negroni R. Study of acute vulvovaginitis in sexually active adult women, with special reference to candidosis, in patients of the Francisco J. Muniz Infectious Diseases Hospital. Revista iberoamericana de micologia. 2004;21(4);177-81. Referans13. Denning DW, Kneale M, Sobel JD, Rautemaa-Richardson R. Global burden of recurrent vulvovaginal candidiasis: a systematic review. The Lancet Infectious Diseases. 2018. Referans14. Friedrich Jr EG. Vaginitis. American journal of ob