Screening for Bacterial Vaginosis in Pregnant Persons to Prevent Preterm Delivery: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement
Open accessAbstract
Importance: Bacterial vaginosis is common and is caused by a disruption of the microbiological environment in the lower genital tract. In the US, reported prevalence of bacterial vaginosis among pregnant women ranges from 5.8% to 19.3% and is higher in some races/ethnicities. Bacterial vaginosis during pregnancy has been associated with adverse obstetrical outcomes including preterm delivery, early miscarriage, postpartum endometritis, and low birth weight. Objective: To update its 2008 recommendation, the USPSTF commissioned a review of the evidence on the accuracy of screening and the benefits and harms of screening for and treatment of bacterial vaginosis in asymptomatic pregnant persons to prevent preterm delivery. Population: This recommendation applies to pregnant persons without symptoms of bacterial vaginosis. Evidence Assessment: The USPSTF concludes with moderate certainty that screening for asymptomatic bacterial vaginosis in pregnant persons not at increased risk for preterm delivery has no net benefit in preventing preterm delivery. The USPSTF concludes that for pregnant persons at increased risk for preterm delivery, the evidence is conflicting and insufficient, and the balance of benefits and harms cannot be determined. Conclusions and Recommendation: The USPSTF recommends against screening for bacterial vaginosis in pregnant persons not at increased risk for preterm delivery. (D recommendation) The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of screening for bacterial vaginosis in pregnant persons at increased risk for preterm delivery. (I statement).
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Evidence does not support routine screening for BV among asymptomatic pregnant women at high risk for preterm delivery.
“Evidence does not support routine screening for BV among asymptomatic pregnant women at high risk for preterm delivery (159).”
From Sexually Transmitted Infections Treatment Guidelines, 2021 (2021) · cites this paper as [159]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 59 · Cited by 73
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- Kahwati LC, Clark R, Berkman ND, et al Screening for Bacterial Vaginosis in Pregnant Adolescents and Women to Prevent Preterm Delivery: An Updated Systematic Review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force: Evidence Synthesis No. 190. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2019. AHRQ publication 19-05259-EF-1.
- Authors
- US Preventive Services Task Force, Owens, D. K., Davidson, K. W., Krist, A. H., Barry, M. J., Cabana, M., Caughey, A. B., Donahue, K., Doubeni, C. A., Epling, J. W., Kubik, M., Ogedegbe, G., Pbert, L., Silverstein, M., Simon, M. A., Tseng, C.-W., & Wong, J. B.
- Affiliations
- VA Palo Alto Health Care System (US)
- Northwell Health (US)
- Harvard University (US)
- Oregon Health & Science University (US)
- University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
- Mayo Clinic (US)
- Carilion Clinic (US)
- New York University (US)
- University of Massachusetts Chan Medical School (US)
- Boston University (US)
- Northwestern University (US)
- University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa (US)
- Tufts University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Owens, Douglas K.
- ORCID
- Venue
- JAMA
- Publisher
- American Medical Association (AMA)
- Published
- 2020-04-07
- Volume
- 323
- Issue
- 13
- Pages
- 1286
- ISSN
- 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
- 0098-7484
- OpenAlex
- W3014493573
- Cited by
- 73
- References
- 59
- Citations by year
- 2026: 7 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 17 · 2020: 5
- FWCI
- 7.92
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- JAMA (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- eScholarship@UMassChan (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Immunology and Microbiology › Microbiology › Reproductive tract infections research
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Preterm Birth and Chorioamnionitis
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Urinary Tract Infections Management
- Keywords
- bacterial vaginosis, pregnancy, preterm birth, screening, asymptomatic infection, low birth weight, postpartum endometritis, miscarriage, screening accuracy, benefits and harms, USPSTF recommendations
- MeSH terms
- Anti-Bacterial Agents, Female, Humans, Mass Screening, Pregnancy, Pregnancy Complications, Infectious, Risk Factors, Vaginosis, Bacterial, Premature Birth, Asymptomatic Infections
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review