【24h】

Evaluation of vaginal complaints.

机译:评估阴道不适。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
       

摘要

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 wereevaluated 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.
机译:背景:阴道症状是妇科会诊的最常见原因之一。传统上,临床医生通过结合体格检查,pH,湿式坐骑和通气测试来诊断阴道念珠菌病,细菌性阴道病和阴道滴虫。目的:评估临床检查的作用,并确定阳性和阴性似然比(LRs)对阴道念珠菌病,细菌性阴道病和阴道滴虫的诊断。数据来源:通过使用结构化文献综述,我们提取了有关症状,体征和办公室实验室程序的敏感性和特异性的信息。我们选择了发表在MEDLINE数据库中的(1966年至2003年4月)发表的文章,并根据诊断与阴道炎,白带,念珠菌病,细菌性阴道病和滴虫病的组合搜索词进行了索引。研究选择:包括对在基层医疗机构中有症状的绝经前妇女的研究。仅当测试能够在上门服务期间提供诊断信息并与可接受的标准标准进行比较时,才对测试进行评估。数据提取:所有3位作者独立提取数据并计算每篇文章的敏感性和特异性。由于缺乏症状和体征的标准定义,因此无法将各个研究的结果进行合并。数据综合:仅症状不能使临床医生自信地区分出阴道炎的病因。但是,患者缺乏瘙痒感使念珠菌病的可能性降低(LR范围0.18 [95%置信区间[CI],0.05-0.70]至0.79 [95%CI,0.72-0.87]),并且缺乏知觉气味会使细菌性阴道病可能性不大(LR,0.07 [95%CI,0.01-0.51])。同样,体格检查标志的诊断能力也受到限制。炎性体征的存在与念珠菌病有关(LR的范围为2.1 [95%CI,1.5-2.8]至8.4 [95%CI,2.3-31])。检查中是否存在“高奶酪”气味可预示细菌性阴道病(LR,3.2 [95%CI,2.1-4.7]),而缺乏气味与念珠菌病有关(LR,2.9 [95%CI,2.4-5.0] )。办公室实验室检查,尤其是阴道分泌物显微镜检查,是诊断这三种情况的最有用方法。结论:当显微镜下出现典型的发现时,很容易诊断出阴道主诉的原因。但是,个人症状,体征和办公室实验室检查的不良表现通常使确定阴道症状的原因变得困难。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号