The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Validation of a simplified grading of Gram stained vaginal smears for use in genitourinary medicine clinics
Open accessAbstract
OBJECTIVES: To validate a simplified grading scheme for Gram stained smears of vaginal fluid for the diagnosis of bacterial vaginosis (BV) against the accepted "gold" standard of Amsel's composite criteria. METHODS: Women attending genitourinary medicine (GUM) clinics, as part of a multicentre study, were diagnosed as having BV if three or more of the following criteria were present; homogeneous discharge, elevated vaginal pH, production of amines, and presence of "clue" cells. Women with less than three of the criteria were considered as normal. Simultaneously, smears were made of vaginal fluid and Gram stained and then assessed qualitatively as normal (grade I), intermediate (grade II), or consistent with BV (grade III). Two new grades were used, grade 0, epithelial cells only with no bacteria, and grade IV, Gram positive cocci only. RESULTS: BV was diagnosed in 83/162 patient visits using the composite criteria, the remainder being regarded as normal. The majority of patients with BV had a smear assessed as grade III (80/83, 96%) and the majority of normal women had a smear assessed as grade I (normal, 48/79, 61%), giving a high sensitivity (97.5%), specificity (96%), and predictive value for a positive (94.1%) and negative (96%) test, kappa index = 0.91. Smears assessed as grade II were found predominantly (12/13) among patients diagnosed as normal, with less than three of the composite criteria. Grades 0 and IV were both only found among normal women. CONCLUSION: This simplified assessment of Gram stained smears can be used as an alternative to Amsel's criteria and is more applicable for use in busy GUM clinics.
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
Cites
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
Self-citation
Cited by
Mitra, A., MacIntyre, D. A., Marchesi, J. R., Lee, Y. S., Bennett, P. R., & Kyrgiou, M. (2016) · Microbiome · doi:10.1186/s40168-016-0203-0 · Cited by 484
Lamont, R., Sobel, J., Akins, R., Hassan, S., Chaiworapongsa, T., Kusanovic, J., & Romero, R. (2011) · BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology · doi:10.1111/j.1471-0528.2010.02840.x · Cited by 481
Targeted PCR for Detection of Vaginal Bacteria Associated with Bacterial Vaginosis
Fredricks, D. N., Fiedler, T. L., Thomas, K. K., Oakley, B. B., & Marrazzo, J. M. (2007) · Journal of Clinical Microbiology · doi:10.1128/jcm.01272-07 · Cited by 406
Ravel, J., Brotman, R. M., Gajer, P., Ma, B., Nandy, M., Fadrosh, D. W., Sakamoto, J., Koenig, S. S., Fu, L., Zhou, X., et al. (2013) · Microbiome · doi:10.1186/2049-2618-1-29 · Cited by 353
Menard, J., Fenollar, F., Henry, M., Bretelle, F., & Raoult, D. (2008) · Clinical Infectious Diseases · doi:10.1086/588661 · Cited by 323
Metadata
- Authors
- Ison, C. A.
- Venue
- Sexually Transmitted Infections
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 2002-12-01
- Volume
- 78
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 413-415
- ISSN
- 0007-134X (ISSN-L)
- 1368-4973
- OpenAlex
- W2015989259
- Cited by
- 241
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 3.43
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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: Validation of a simplified grading of Gram stained vaginal smears for use in genitourinary medicine clinics. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/sti.78.6.413
- The paper
- Ison, C. A. (2002). Validation of a simplified grading of Gram stained vaginal smears for use in genitourinary medicine clinics. Sexually Transmitted Infections. https://doi.org/10.1136/sti.78.6.413
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.