Skip to main content
. 2013 Apr 19;17(3):313–318. doi: 10.1016/j.bjid.2012.10.026

Table 1.

Concordance between the groups of women on the basis of three different laboratory methods.

Groups of women Methods for detection of G. vaginalis
Gram staining (by common criteria of Nugent and Ison/Hay and presence of Clue cells >20% in field)
No (% ± SD)
Culture method for detection of G. vaginalis
No (% ± SD)
PCR method for detection of G. vaginalis
No (% ± SD)
With TVF With BV With TVF With BV With TVF With BV
Pregnant women symptomatic (n = 213) 26 (12.21 ± 4.40) 126 (59.15 ± 6.60) 8 (3.76 ± 2.55) 56 (26.29 ± 5.91) 12 (5.63 ± 3.10) 124 (58.22 ± 6.62)
Pregnant women asymptomatic (n = 127) 22 (17.32 ± 6.58) 18 (14.17 ± 6.07) 4 (3.15 ± 3.03) 11 (8.66 ± 4.89) 7 (5.51 ± 3.97) 16 (12.60 ± 5.77)
Nonpregnant women symptomatic (n = 355) 37 (10.42 ± 3.18) 199 (56.06 ± 5.16) 10 (2.82 ± 1.72) 112 (31.55 ± 4.83) 20 (5.63 ± 2.40) 195 (54.93 ± 5.18)
Nonpregnant women asymptomatiс (n = 114) 19 (16.67 ± 6.91) 15 (13.16 ± 6.27) 4 (3.50 ± 3.40) 8 (7.02 ± 4.74) 6 (5.26 ± 4.14) 13 (11.40 ± 5.89)
All symptomatic (n = 568) 63 (11.09 ± 2.58) 325 (57.22 ± 4.07) 18 (3.17 ± 1.44) 168 (29.58 ± 3.75) 32 (5.63 ± 1.90) 319 (56.16 ± 4.08)
All asymptomatic (n = 241) 41 (17.01 ± 4.74) 33 (13.69 ± 4.34) 8 (3.32 ± 2.26) 19 (7.88 ± 3.40) 13 (5.39 ± 2.85) 29 (12.03 ± 4.11)

SD, standard deviation.