↓ Skip to main content

Diagnosis of bacterial vaginosis: need for validation of microscopic image area used for scoring bacterial morphotypes

Overview of attention for article published in Sexually Transmitted Infections, January 2004
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

patent
2 patents

Citations

dimensions_citation
43 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
42 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Diagnosis of bacterial vaginosis: need for validation of microscopic image area used for scoring bacterial morphotypes
Published in
Sexually Transmitted Infections, January 2004
DOI 10.1136/sti.2003.006106
Pubmed ID
Authors

P-G Larsson, B Carlsson, L Fåhraeus, T Jakobsson, U Forsum

Abstract

The diagnosis of bacterial vaginosis (BV) is often made according to Nugent's classification, a scoring system based on bacterial counting of Gram stained slides of vaginal secretion. However as the image area of the microscope field will influence the number of morphotypes seen there is a need to standardise the area. A graph intended for recalculation of number of bacterial morphotypes seen by the observer using 1000 x magnification from various microscope set-ups was constructed and applied to data sets typical for scoring BV. The graph was used in recalculation of Nugent scores, which were also compared with the Ison/Hay scores to evaluate the consequences for the diagnosis of BV. The observed image area differed by 300% among the investigated microscope set-ups. In two different data sets, one treatment study and one screening study, a considerable change in the number of women classified as intermediate was seen when the graph was used to standardise the image area. The recalculated numbers were also compared to the Ison/Hay classification. Weighted kappa indexes between the different methods were 0.84, 0.88, and 0.90, indicating that the methods are comparable. Because of the considerable differences among image areas covered by different microscope set-ups used in Nugent and Ison/Hay scoring, there is a need to standardise the area in order to reach comparable scores reflecting the diagnosis of BV in different laboratories. The differences in the intermediate group will have a considerable effect on the results from both treatment and prevalence studies, even though the kappa indexes indicate very good agreement between the methods used.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 42 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 2%
Unknown 41 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Doctoral Student 5 12%
Student > Bachelor 5 12%
Researcher 3 7%
Other 3 7%
Student > Postgraduate 3 7%
Other 10 24%
Unknown 13 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 29%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 17%
Immunology and Microbiology 5 12%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 2%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 2%
Other 3 7%
Unknown 13 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 13 October 2015.
All research outputs
#8,534,976
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Sexually Transmitted Infections
#2,074
of 3,833 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#37,715
of 147,095 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Sexually Transmitted Infections
#8
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,833 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.7. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 147,095 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.