Accuracy of the BD MAX™ vaginal panel in the diagnosis of infectious vaginitis
- 41 Downloads
The aim of this study was to evaluate the BD MAX™ vaginal panel in the diagnosis of bacterial vaginosis (BV), vulvovaginal candidiasis (VVC), and trichomoniasis by comparing it with conventional methods: (i) combination of Hay criteria and presence of clue cells with predominant growth of Gardnerella vaginalis, (ii) yeast culture, and (iii) combination of culture, wet mount microscopic examination, and an alternative molecular assay. One thousand vaginal samples of women ≥ 14 years were analyzed; 5% of the samples belonged to pregnant women. 19.3% were classified as BV, in 33.6% yeasts were recovered and in 1.5% TV was detected. For BV, sensitivity and specificity were of 89.8% and 96.5%, respectively; for VVC, sensitivity and specificity were of 97.4% and 96.8%, respectively, and for T. vaginalis, the sensitivity and specificity were of 100%. The BD MAX™ vaginal panel is highly sensitive and specific and simplifies the identification of infectious vaginitis.
KeywordsBacterial vaginosis Gardnerella vaginalis Vulvovaginal candidiasis Trichomonas vaginalis Vaginitis BD MAX vaginal panel
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
A. Canut-Blasco reports personal fees from Pfizer, Merck, Roche, and Werfen unrelated to the current study. All other authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
For this type of study, formal consent is not required.
- 2.Ranjit E, Raghubanshi BR, Maskey S, Parajuli P (2018) Prevalence of bacterial vaginosis and its association with risk factors among nonpregnant women: a hospital-based study. Inter J Microbiol 8349601. https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/8349601
- 4.Spiegel CA, Amsel R, Holmes KK (1983) Diagnosis of bacterial vaginosis by direct Gram stain of vaginal fluid. J Clin Microbiol 18:170–177Google Scholar
- 5.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 29:297–301Google Scholar
- 7.Chawla R, Bhalla O, Chadha S, Grover S, Garg S (2013) Comparison of Hay’s criteria with Nugent’s scoring system for diagnosis of bacterial vaginosis. Biomed Res Int 365194. https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/365194
- 20.Muzny CA, Blanchard E, Taylor CM, Aaron KJ, Talluri R, Griswold ME (2018) Identification of key bacteria involved in the induction of incident bacterial vaginosis: a prospective study. J Infect Dis 218:966–978Google Scholar
- 21.Carrillo- Ávila JA, Serrano-García ML, Fernández-Parra J, Sorlózano-Puerto A, Navarro-Marí JM, Stensvold R (2017) Prevalence and genetic diversity of Trichomonas vaginalis in the general population of Granada and co-infections with Gardnerella vaginalis and Candida species. J Med Microbiol 66:1436–1442CrossRefGoogle Scholar