Skip directly to site content Skip directly to page options Skip directly to A-Z link Skip directly to A-Z link Skip directly to A-Z link
Volume 8, Number 7—July 2002
Letter

Cost-Effective Screening for Trichomoniasis

On This Page
Article Metrics
3
citations of this article
EID Journal Metrics on Scopus

Cite This Article

To the Editor: I read with interest a recent article in your journal, “Trichomonas vaginalis, HIV, and African Americans” (1), and I commend the authors’ suggestion to implement screening and reporting of trichomoniasis for high-risk populations.

In the article, a cost-effective screening approach is mentioned, which includes culturing only for those women whose wet-mount tests are negative. In 1999, my colleagues and I reported on the validity of this method for diagnosing trichomoniasis in women (2). During our study, an additional vaginal swab was collected during the pelvic examination and placed into a glass tube. If the wet mount was negative, this swab was later added to a culture pouch for T. vaginalis. We found no statistically significant difference in the sensitivity of this method compared with that of adding swabs immediately to pouches at bedside. This method of delaying the second test until the results of the first test are known should be considered in screening women for trichomoniasis, especially in high-prevalence populations.

Top

Jane R. Schwebke

Author affiliation: University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama, USA

Top

References

  1. Sorvillo  F, Smith  L, Kerndt  P, Ash  L. Trichomonas vaginalis, HIV, and African Americans. Emerg Infect Dis. 2001;7:92732.PubMed
  2. Schwebke  JR, Venglarik  MF, Morgan  SC. Delayed versus immediate bedside inoculation of culture media for diagnosis of vaginal trichomonosis. J Clin Microbiol. 1999;37:236970.PubMed

Top

Cite This Article

DOI: 10.3201/eid0807.010543

Related Links

Top

Table of Contents – Volume 8, Number 7—July 2002

Page created: July 16, 2010
Page updated: July 16, 2010
Page reviewed: July 16, 2010
The conclusions, findings, and opinions expressed by authors contributing to this journal do not necessarily reflect the official position of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the Public Health Service, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or the authors' affiliated institutions. Use of trade names is for identification only and does not imply endorsement by any of the groups named above.
file_external