The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Diagnosis of bacterial vaginosis by direct gram stain of vaginal fluid
Open accessAbstract
To determine whether bacterial vaginosis (BV), also known as nonspecific vaginitis, could be diagnosed by evaluating a Gram stain of vaginal fluid, we examined samples from 60 women of whom 25 had clinical evidence of BV and 35 had candidal vaginitis or normal examinations. An inverse relationship between the quantity of the Lactobacillus morphotype (large gram-positive rods) and of the Gardnerella morphotype (small gram-variable rods) was noted on Gram stain (P less than 0.001). When Gram stain showed a predominance (3 to 4+) of the Lactobacillus morphotype with or without the Gardnerella morphotype, it was interpreted as normal. When Gram stain showed mixed flora consisting of gram-positive, gram-negative, or gram-variable bacteria and the Lactobacillus morphotype was decreased or absent (0 to 2+), the Gram stain was interpreted as consistent with BV. Gram stain was consistent with BV in 25 of 25 women given a clinical diagnosis of BV and in none of 35 women with candidal vaginitis or normal examinations. Duplicate slides prepared from 20 additional specimens of vaginal fluid were stained by two methods and examined by three evaluators. Interevaluator interpretations and intraevaluator interpretations of duplicate slides were in agreement with one another and with the clinical diagnosis greater than or equal to 90% of the time. We concluded that a microscopically detectable change in vaginal microflora from the Lactobacillus morphotype, with or without the Gardnerella morphotype (normal), to a mixed flora with few or no Lactobacillus morphotypes (BV) can be used in the diagnosis of BV.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Cited by
Molecular Identification of Bacteria Associated with Bacterial Vaginosis
Fredricks, D. N., Fiedler, T. L., & Marrazzo, J. M. (2005) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa043802 · Cited by 1,303
A Case–Control Study of Chorioamnionic Infection and Histologic Chorioamnionitis in Prematurity
Hillier, S. L., Martius, J., Krohn, M., Kiviat, N., Holmes, K. K., & Eschenbach, D. A. (1988) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm198810133191503 · Cited by 992
Self-citationRomero, R., Hassan, S. S., Gajer, P., Tarca, A. L., Fadrosh, D. W., Nikita, L., Galuppi, M., Lamont, R. F., Chaemsaithong, P., Miranda, J., et al. (2014) · Microbiome · doi:10.1186/2049-2618-2-4 · Cited by 852
Hay, P. E., Lamont, R. F., Taylor-Robinson, D., Morgan, D. J., Ison, C., & Pearson, J. (1994) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.308.6924.295 · Cited by 651
Leitich, H., & Kiss, H. (2007) · Best Practice & Research Clinical Obstetrics & Gynaecology · doi:10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2006.12.005 · Cited by 342
Metadata
- Authors
- Spiegel, C. A., Amsel, R., & Holmes, K. K.
- Venue
- Journal of Clinical Microbiology
- Publisher
- American Society for Microbiology
- Published
- 1983-07
- Volume
- 18
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 170-177
- ISSN
- 0095-1137 (ISSN-L)
- 1098-660X
- OpenAlex
- W1783060902
- Cited by
- 412
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 5.65
- 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: Diagnosis of bacterial vaginosis by direct gram stain of vaginal fluid. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1128/jcm.18.1.170-177.1983
- The paper
- Spiegel, C. A., Amsel, R., & Holmes, K. K. (1983). Diagnosis of bacterial vaginosis by direct gram stain of vaginal fluid. Journal of Clinical Microbiology. https://doi.org/10.1128/jcm.18.1.170-177.1983
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.