Forsum Urban, Hallén Anders, Larsson P G
Department of Molecular and Clinical Medicine, Linköping University, 581 56Linköping, Sweden.
APMIS. 2005 Mar;113(3):153-61. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0463.2005.apm1130301.x.
Diagnosing bacterial vaginosis (BV) has long been based on the clinical criteria of Amsel et al., whereby three of four defined criteria must be satisfied. Though there are other criteria and scoring methods which function well in comparison (i.e. Nugent scoring), it is not certain that they will always identify the same category of patients. Point-of-care methods based on various combinations of microbial products, presence of RNA, or more complex laboratory instrumentations such as sensor arrays, have also been introduced for the diagnosis of BV. No method for diagnosing BV can at present be regarded as the best. It could be that--based partly on tacit knowledge on the part of the clinical investigators scoring in the clinic--various scoring systems have been chosen to fit a particular BV-related problem in a particular population. In this review we critically examine these pertinent issues influencing clinical scoring and laboratory diagnostics of BV.
长期以来，细菌性阴道病（BV）的诊断一直基于安塞尔等人提出的临床标准，即必须满足四项既定标准中的三项。虽然还有其他标准和评分方法在比较中表现良好（如纽金特评分），但不确定它们是否总能识别出同一类患者。基于微生物产物的各种组合、RNA的存在或更复杂的实验室仪器（如传感器阵列）的即时检测方法也已被引入用于BV的诊断。目前，没有一种诊断BV的方法可以被视为最佳方法。可能部分基于临床研究者在临床评分中的隐性知识，选择了各种评分系统来适应特定人群中特定的BV相关问题。在本综述中，我们批判性地审视了这些影响BV临床评分和实验室诊断的相关问题。
