CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 117Reproductive tract infections researchUrinary Tract Infections ManagementHIV/AIDS Research and Interventions

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 15 of the 15 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Effects of recent sexual activity and use of a diaphragm on the vaginal microflora.

Hooton, T. M., Roberts, P. L., Stamm, W. E.·1994·Clinical Infectious Diseases
DOI 10.1093/clinids/19.2.274
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

We prospectively studied 40 women over a median period of 28 weeks to ascertain the effects on vaginal microflora of sexual intercourse alone compared with sexual intercourse associated with use of a diaphragm with a spermicide (diaphragm/spermicide). Compared with no sexual intercourse, sexual intercourse with use of a diaphragm/spermicide in the preceding 3 days was strongly associated with increases in rates of vaginal colonization with uropathogenic flora, including Escherichia coli (P < .0001), other gram-negative uropathogens (P = .0045), group D streptococci (P = .014), and group B streptococci (P = .0015). Except for E. coli colonization, no such increases in rates of vaginal colonization were seen at visits preceded by sexual intercourse without use of a diaphragm/spermicide. Compared with no sexual intercourse, sexual intercourse with use of a diaphragm/spermicide in the preceding 3 days also was associated with a marked increase in rates of candidal colonization (P < .0001) and with a decrease in rates of lactobacillus colonization (P < .0001). We conclude that bacterial and fungal microflora in the vagina are strongly influenced by recent use of a diaphragm/spermicide and minimally affected by sexual intercourse alone.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/clinids/19.2.274

Cites

15 of 15 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Citations

Cites

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 117

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Hooton, T. M., Roberts, P. L., & Stamm, W. E.
Affiliations
University of Washington (US)
Corresponding author
Hooton, T. M.
ORCID
Hooton, T. M.
Venue
Clinical Infectious Diseases
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Published
1994-08-01
Volume
19
Issue
2
Pages
274-278
ISSN
  • 1058-4838 (ISSN-L)
  • 1537-6591
DOI
10.1093/clinids/19.2.274
OpenAlex
W2055449086
Cited by
117
References
15
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 6
FWCI
4.28
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Clinical Infectious Diseases (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
University of Washington
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Immunology and Microbiology › Microbiology › Reproductive tract infections research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Urology › Urinary Tract Infections Management
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Infectious Diseases › HIV/AIDS Research and Interventions
Keywords
vaginal microbiota, diaphragm, spermicides, sexual intercourse, uropathogenic bacteria, Escherichia coli, Gram-negative uropathogens, Streptococcus agalactiae, group D streptococci, candidal colonization, Lactobacillus, vaginal colonization
MeSH terms
Adult, Candida, Coitus, Contraceptive Agents, Female, Contraceptive Devices, Female, Female, Gram-Negative Bacteria, Humans, Prospective Studies, Urinary Tract Infections, Vagina

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