Suppr超能文献

阴道疾病评估

Evaluation of vaginal complaints.

作者信息

Anderson Matthew R, Klink Kathleen, Cohrssen Andreas

机构信息

Department of Family and Social Medicine, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, NY, USA.

出版信息

JAMA. 2004 Mar 17;291(11):1368-79. doi: 10.1001/jama.291.11.1368.

Abstract

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.

摘要

背景

阴道症状是妇科就诊最常见的原因之一。传统上,临床医生通过体格检查、pH值、湿片检查和胺试验等多种方法综合诊断阴道念珠菌病、细菌性阴道病和阴道毛滴虫病。

目的

评估临床检查的作用,并确定诊断阴道念珠菌病、细菌性阴道病和阴道毛滴虫病的阳性和阴性似然比(LRs)。

数据来源

通过结构化文献综述,我们提取了关于症状、体征和门诊实验室检查的敏感性和特异性的信息。我们选择了发表于1966年至2003年4月、出现在MEDLINE数据库中且在阴道炎诊断、阴道分泌物、念珠菌病、细菌性阴道病和滴虫病联合检索词下索引的文章。

研究选择

纳入在初级保健机构就诊的有症状患者的研究。仅当检查能在门诊就诊期间提供诊断信息并与可接受的标准对照时,才对检查进行评估。

数据提取

所有三位作者独立提取数据并计算每篇文章的敏感性和特异性。症状和体征缺乏标准定义使得无法合并不同研究的结果。

数据综合

仅凭症状无法让临床医生自信地区分阴道炎的病因。然而,患者无瘙痒症状使念珠菌病的可能性降低(似然比范围为0.18[95%置信区间(CI),0.05 - 0.70]至0.79[95%CI,0.72 - 0.87]),无异味使细菌性阴道病的可能性不大(似然比,0.07[95%CI,0.01 - 0.51])。同样,体格检查体征的诊断能力有限。炎症体征的出现与念珠菌病相关(似然比范围为2.1[95%CI,1.5 - 2.8]至8.4[95%CI,2.3 - 31])。检查时出现“高奶酪样”气味提示细菌性阴道病(似然比,3.2[95%CI,2.1 - 4.7]),而无气味与念珠菌病相关(似然比,2.9[95%CI,2.4 - 5.0])。门诊实验室检查,尤其是阴道分泌物显微镜检查,是诊断这三种疾病最有用的方法。

结论

当显微镜检查出现典型表现时,阴道不适的病因可能容易诊断。然而,单个症状、体征和门诊实验室检查的表现不佳常常使得确定阴道症状的病因存在问题。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验