Modern methods for diagnosis ofGardnerella infection

Makarova, L. N.; Кравцов, Э. Г.; Васильева, Е. А.; Dmitriev, G. A.; Медведева, Е. А.; Kirillov, M. Yu.; Spirina, G. V.

doi:10.1007/bf02766094

Cited by 2 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Makarova et al compared morphological, bacteriological, serological, and genetic methods for the diagnosis of G. vaginalis. They showed that PCR was more efficient for the diagnosis of G. vaginalis (16). Menard (19).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Molecular Study of Gardnerella vaginalis Isolated from Vaginal Discharge of Women Referring to Gynecology Clinics in Chaharmahal and Bakhtiari, Iran, in 2017

Hashemi

Shakibapour

Fazeli

et al. 2021

Arch Clin Infect Dis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: vaginal infections are common among women referring to gynecological clinics worldwide, but treatment modalities cannot provide complete remission of the disease. Laboratory diagnosis of vaginal infections using more sensitive and specific methods is essential for the best treatment options. Objectives: In this study, diagnosis of bacterial vaginosis (BV) using the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) method was investigated. Methods: vaginal samples were collected from 635 symptomatic women referring to gynecology clinics in Chaharmahal and Bakhtiari, Iran, in 2017. All samples were then diagnosed using microscopy, culture, and PCR methods. Results: Of 635 symptomatic women, 200 cases (31.4%) were diagnosed with BV according to the culture method using the PCR method. However, 3.9% of samples who were negative based on the culture method, were diagnosed to have BV based on PCR results. Conclusions: PCR is more sensitive than culture and microscopy methods for the diagnosis of BV.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%