Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 388

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 33 of the 33 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Colonization of the upper genital tract by vaginal bacterial species in nonpregnant women

Open access
Mitchell, Caroline M., Haick, Anoria, Nkwopara, Evangelyn, Garcia, Rochelle, Rendi, Mara, Agnew, Kathy, Fredricks, David N., Eschenbach, David·2015·American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology
DOI 10.1016/j.ajog.2014.11.043
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Objective Evaluate upper genital tract (UGT) presence of vaginal bacterial species using sensitive molecular methods capable of detecting fastidious bacterial vaginosis (BV)-associated bacteria. Study Design Vaginal swabs were collected prior to hysterectomy. The excised uterus was sterilely opened and swabs collected from endometrium and upper endocervix. DNA was tested in 11 quantitative PCR (qPCR) assays for 12 bacterial species: Lactobacillus iners, L. crispatus, L. jensenii, Gardnerella vaginalis, Atopobium vaginae, Megasphaera spp., Prevotella spp., Leptotrichia/Sneathia, BVAB1, BVAB2, BVAB3 and a broad-range16S rRNA gene assay. Endometrial fluid was tested with Luminex and ELISA for cytokines and defensins, and tissue for gene expression of defensins and cathelicidin. Results We enrolled 58 women: mean age 43 + 7 years, mostly white (n = 46; 79%) and BV-negative (n = 43; 74%). By species-specific qPCR, 55 (95%) had UGT colonization with at least one species (n = 52), or were positive by 16S PCR (n = 3). The most common species were L. iners (45% UGT, 61% vagina), Prevotella spp. (33% UGT, 76% vagina) and L. crispatus (33% UGT, 56% vagina). Median quantities of bacteria in the UGT were lower than vaginal levels by 2–4 log10 rRNA gene copies/swab. There were no differences in endometrial inflammatory markers between women with no bacteria, Lactobacillus only or any BV-associated species in the UGT. Conclusion Our data suggest that the endometrial cavity is not sterile in most women undergoing hysterectomy, and that the presence of low levels of bacteria in the uterus is not associated with significant inflammation.

Overview

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ajog.2014.11.043

Cites

33 of 33 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 33 references

Cited by

See all 388

Metadata

Authors
Mitchell, C. M., Haick, A., Nkwopara, E., Garcia, R., Rendi, M., Agnew, K., Fredricks, D. N., & Eschenbach, D.
Venue
American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2015-05
Volume
212
Issue
5
Pages
611.e1-611.e9
ISSN
0002-9378 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.ajog.2014.11.043
OpenAlex
W2010571114
Cited by
388
References
33
FWCI
11.70
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Colonization of the upper genital tract by vaginal bacterial species in nonpregnant women. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.ajog.2014.11.043
The paper
Mitchell, C. M., Haick, A., Nkwopara, E., Garcia, R., Rendi, M., Agnew, K., Fredricks, D. N., & Eschenbach, D. (2015). Colonization of the upper genital tract by vaginal bacterial species in nonpregnant women. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2014.11.043

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.