Cited by 21Reproductive tract infections researchAntifungal resistance and susceptibilityGynecological conditions and treatments

Vulvovaginal Candidiasis in Reproductive Age Women in Enugu Nigeria, Clinical versus Laboratory-Assisted Diagnosis

Open access
Nwankwo, TO, Aniebue, UU, Nwafor, MI·2018·Nigerian Journal of Clinical Practice

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Clinical diagnosis of acute vulvovaginal candidiasis (VVC) depends on evidence of clinical symptoms, but symptomatic treatment widely practiced in low-resource area may lead to overdiagnosis and treatment. OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study is to determine the prevalence of VVC among women attending gynecological clinic in University of Nigeria Teaching Hospital (UNTH) Enugu and the accuracy of clinical-based diagnosis versus laboratory test supported diagnosis and patients' characteristics that affect accuracy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study surveyed patients seen in a gynecologic clinic for VVC using a semi-structured, pretested, and interviewer-administered questionnaire. Vaginal examination was done on each patient and findings documented. A pair of swabs was taken from the vagina and cervical os and cultured for Candida species using Sabouraud Dexttose Agar. Data were analyzed using statistical software, SPSS version 15 (SPSS Inc., Chicago IL, USA). P ≤ 0.05 were considered to be statistically significant. RESULTS: The mean age of 209 women surveyed was 35.9 (standard deviation [SD] ±9.0) years. Their mean parity was 2 (SD ± 3). The prevalence of VVC was 17.7% based on symptoms and laboratory test. Clinically based diagnosis had a sensitivity of 70.3% and specificity of 83.7%. Forty-one (19.6%) of the study population had good knowledge of VVC. More than 44% of the women had self-reported and treated VVC within the year. Young women of 24 years or less (54.5%) and those who had reported other episodes of VVC within the past year (41.1%) were most commonly associated with inaccurate clinical diagnosis. CONCLUSION: Clinically based diagnosis of VVC has an unacceptably high false-positive rate which may encourage continued presumptive treatment with its attendant risks. Clinical evaluation and laboratory culture of vulvovaginal specimen should be the standard diagnostic method.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.4103/njcp.njcp_25_16

Cites

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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?

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Nwankwo, T., Aniebue, U., & Nwafor, M.
Affiliations
University of Nigeria Teaching Hospital (NG)
Corresponding author
Nwankwo, TO
Venue
Nigerian Journal of Clinical Practice
Published
2018
Volume
21
Issue
8
Pages
1017
ISSN
1119-3077 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2893559998
Cited by
21
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 3
FWCI
1.41
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc-sa
Locations
  • Nigerian Journal of Clinical Practice (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Immunology and Microbiology › Microbiology › Reproductive tract infections research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Infectious Diseases › Antifungal resistance and susceptibility
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Obstetrics and Gynecology › Gynecological conditions and treatments
Keywords
vaginal candidiasis, diagnosis, laboratory diagnosis, diagnostic accuracy, prevalence, false-positive diagnosis, self-medication, women of reproductive age, Enugu
MeSH terms
Adult, Candida, Candidiasis, Vulvovaginal, Cross-Sectional Studies, Female, Humans, Middle Aged, Nigeria, Pregnancy, Prospective Studies, Surveys and Questionnaires, Prevalence, Young Adult

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