Skip to main content
. 2017 Dec 19;86(1):e00410-17. doi: 10.1128/IAI.00410-17

TABLE 3.

Participant summary by community functional subtype (F1, F2, and F3)

Parameter Value for group
P value comparing all groupsf P value for F3 vs F2f
F1 (n = 74) F2 (n = 51) F3 (n = 35)
No. (%) of participants at location 0.02 0.8
    CPT 31 (42) 32 (63) 23 (66)
    JHB 43 (58) 19 (37) 12 (34)
Median age (yr)a 18 19 19 0.24
Median pHb 4.7 5 5 4.00e−06 0.8
No. (%) of participants with HPV status 0.05 0.7
    High risk 21 (28) 24 (57) 19 (54)
    Low risk 19 (26) 13 (26) 6 (17)
    Negative 34 (46) 14 (27) 10 (29)
No. (%) of participants with BV status <2.2e−16 0.003
    BV positive 8 (11) 32 (63) 33 (94)
    BV intermediate 6 (8) 11 (21) 1 (3)
    BV negative 60 (81) 8 (16) 1 (3)
No. (%) of participants of compositional subtypec <2.2e−16 3.00e−04
    C1 0 (0) 35 (85) 35 (100)
    C2 32 (44) 0 (0) 0 (0)
    C3 41 (56) 6 (15) 0 (0)
Median Nugent score 0 8 10 <2.2e−16 1.00e−04
No. (%) of participants with STI
    Any 17 (23) 29 (57) 19 (54) 1.00e−04 0.8
    C. trachomatis 13 (18) 20 (39) 16 (46) 0.003 0.7
No. (%) of participants of inflammatory categoryd 4.00e−12 1.00e−04
    High 21 (29) 34 (69) 35 (100)
    Low 51 (71) 15 (31) 0 (0)
Median BMIe 22.5 23.3 25.8 0.0001 1
Median α diversity value (Shannon) 1 2.3 2.3 <2.2e−16 0.8
No. (%) of participants using HC 48 (65) 38 (76) 28 (80) 0.2 0.8
a

Eight women had missing information.

b

Six women had missing information.

c

Eleven women were not classified as belonging to C1/C2/C3 (i.e., clustering criteria were not met).

d

Four women had missing information.

e

Seven women had missing information.

f

Significant adjusted P values are in boldface type.