Nugent与Hay/Ison评分标准在WASP制备阴道标本中诊断细菌性阴道病的比较

F. Antonucci, Walter Mir, Ola, C. Fontana
{"title":"Nugent与Hay/Ison评分标准在WASP制备阴道标本中诊断细菌性阴道病的比较","authors":"F. Antonucci, Walter Mir, Ola, C. Fontana","doi":"10.4172/CLINICAL-INVESTIGATION.1000116","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: The aim of this study was to compare two different Bacterial Vaginosis diagnosis criteria, Nugent’s score system and Hay/Ison criterion, by using Gram-stained vaginal smears. Materials and findings: Gram-stained smears were prepared with 10 μl and 30 μl of 100 vaginal samples, collected in ESwab®, by the WASP® automatic system. All smears were examined at 1000X magnification and assessed using both Nugent and Hay/Ison criteria. In addition, the presence of clue cells was recorded. All the slides were assessed by two different readers and reviewed by a supervisor. Considering the 10 μl smears, Nugent’s scoring results were: 90 patients with normal vaginal flora, five with intermediate flora and five with Bacterial Vaginosis. Instead, Hay/Ison criterion results were: 83 patients had Grade I, 12 Grade II and 5 Grade III. About the 30 μl ESwab® smears, the Nugent’s scoring results were: 92 patients with normal vaginal flora, three intermediate flora and five with Bacterial Vaginosis. In contrast, the results obtained by using the Hay/Ison criterion were: 84 patients had Grade I, 12 had Grade II and 4 had Grade III. Clue cells were detected in all the Bacterial Vaginosis cases. Conclusions: The Hay/Ison criterion is a credible alternative to the Nugent’s score system for the diagnosis of Bacterial Vaginosis. Furthermore, the combination of WASP® automatic system and the Hay/Ison criterion can represent a fast and reliable workflow, especially in those laboratories where the request of vaginal culture tests is extremely high.","PeriodicalId":10369,"journal":{"name":"Clinical investigation","volume":"16 1","pages":"89-93"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"9","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison between Nugent's and Hay/Ison scoring criteria for the diagnosis of Bacterial Vaginosis in WASP prepared vaginal samples\",\"authors\":\"F. Antonucci, Walter Mir, Ola, C. Fontana\",\"doi\":\"10.4172/CLINICAL-INVESTIGATION.1000116\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background: The aim of this study was to compare two different Bacterial Vaginosis diagnosis criteria, Nugent’s score system and Hay/Ison criterion, by using Gram-stained vaginal smears. Materials and findings: Gram-stained smears were prepared with 10 μl and 30 μl of 100 vaginal samples, collected in ESwab®, by the WASP® automatic system. All smears were examined at 1000X magnification and assessed using both Nugent and Hay/Ison criteria. In addition, the presence of clue cells was recorded. All the slides were assessed by two different readers and reviewed by a supervisor. Considering the 10 μl smears, Nugent’s scoring results were: 90 patients with normal vaginal flora, five with intermediate flora and five with Bacterial Vaginosis. Instead, Hay/Ison criterion results were: 83 patients had Grade I, 12 Grade II and 5 Grade III. About the 30 μl ESwab® smears, the Nugent’s scoring results were: 92 patients with normal vaginal flora, three intermediate flora and five with Bacterial Vaginosis. In contrast, the results obtained by using the Hay/Ison criterion were: 84 patients had Grade I, 12 had Grade II and 4 had Grade III. Clue cells were detected in all the Bacterial Vaginosis cases. Conclusions: The Hay/Ison criterion is a credible alternative to the Nugent’s score system for the diagnosis of Bacterial Vaginosis. Furthermore, the combination of WASP® automatic system and the Hay/Ison criterion can represent a fast and reliable workflow, especially in those laboratories where the request of vaginal culture tests is extremely high.\",\"PeriodicalId\":10369,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical investigation\",\"volume\":\"16 1\",\"pages\":\"89-93\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2017-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"9\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical investigation\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4172/CLINICAL-INVESTIGATION.1000116\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical investigation","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4172/CLINICAL-INVESTIGATION.1000116","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 9

摘要

背景:本研究的目的是比较两种不同的细菌性阴道病的诊断标准,Nugent评分系统和Hay/Ison标准,通过革兰氏染色阴道涂片。材料和发现:取100份阴道标本,分别取10 μl和30 μl,采用WASP®自动系统制备革兰氏染色涂片。所有涂片在1000倍放大镜下检查,并使用Nugent和Hay/Ison标准进行评估。此外,还记录了线索细胞的存在。所有的幻灯片都由两位不同的阅读者进行评估,并由一位主管进行审阅。考虑10 μl涂片,Nugent评分结果为:阴道菌群正常90例,中间菌群5例,细菌性阴道病5例。相反,Hay/Ison标准的结果是:83例患者为I级,12例为II级,5例为III级。对于30 μl ESwab®涂片,Nugent评分结果为:92例阴道菌群正常,3例中间菌群,5例细菌性阴道病。相比之下,使用Hay/Ison标准获得的结果是:84例患者为I级,12例为II级,4例为III级。所有细菌性阴道病病例均检出线索细胞。结论:对于细菌性阴道病的诊断,Hay/Ison标准是一种可靠的替代Nugent评分系统。此外,WASP®自动系统和Hay/Ison标准的结合可以代表一个快速可靠的工作流程,特别是在那些对阴道培养测试要求极高的实验室。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Comparison between Nugent's and Hay/Ison scoring criteria for the diagnosis of Bacterial Vaginosis in WASP prepared vaginal samples
Background: The aim of this study was to compare two different Bacterial Vaginosis diagnosis criteria, Nugent’s score system and Hay/Ison criterion, by using Gram-stained vaginal smears. Materials and findings: Gram-stained smears were prepared with 10 μl and 30 μl of 100 vaginal samples, collected in ESwab®, by the WASP® automatic system. All smears were examined at 1000X magnification and assessed using both Nugent and Hay/Ison criteria. In addition, the presence of clue cells was recorded. All the slides were assessed by two different readers and reviewed by a supervisor. Considering the 10 μl smears, Nugent’s scoring results were: 90 patients with normal vaginal flora, five with intermediate flora and five with Bacterial Vaginosis. Instead, Hay/Ison criterion results were: 83 patients had Grade I, 12 Grade II and 5 Grade III. About the 30 μl ESwab® smears, the Nugent’s scoring results were: 92 patients with normal vaginal flora, three intermediate flora and five with Bacterial Vaginosis. In contrast, the results obtained by using the Hay/Ison criterion were: 84 patients had Grade I, 12 had Grade II and 4 had Grade III. Clue cells were detected in all the Bacterial Vaginosis cases. Conclusions: The Hay/Ison criterion is a credible alternative to the Nugent’s score system for the diagnosis of Bacterial Vaginosis. Furthermore, the combination of WASP® automatic system and the Hay/Ison criterion can represent a fast and reliable workflow, especially in those laboratories where the request of vaginal culture tests is extremely high.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Targeting TGF-beta pathway with COVID-19 Drug Candidate ARTIVeda/PulmoHeal Accelerates Recovery from Mild-Moderate COVID-19 A Prospective on Allergic Rhinitis Use of Cladribine for multiple sclerosis treatment: An image article Thalidomide may be an effective medicine for Blau Syndrome Prophylactic administration of a clinically safe low dose of the COVID-19 drug candidate Rejuveinix (RJX) effectively prevents fatal cytokine storm and mitigates inflammatory organ injury in a mouse model of sepsis
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1