JABFM
HOME HELP CONTACT US SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow Rapid Responses: Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when Rapid Responses are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Ferris, D. G.
Right arrow Articles by McClendon, N.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Ferris, D. G.
Right arrow Articles by McClendon, N.
The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine 19:368-373 (2006)
© 2006 American Board of Family Medicine

Original Research

Variability of Vaginal pH Determination by Patients and Clinicians

Daron G. Ferris, MD, Sean L. Francis, MD, Eileen D. Dickman, PhD, MBA, CCRC, Kimberly Miler-Miles, MD, Jennifer L. Waller, PhD and Nora McClendon

From the Departments of Family Medicine (DGF, EDD), Obstetrics and Gynecology (DGF, SLF, KM-M, NM), and Biostatistics (JLW), The Medical College of Georgia, Augusta, GA

Correspondence: Corresponding author: Daron G. Ferris, MD, Department of Family Medicine, The Medical College of Georgia, 1423 Harper Street, HH-105, Augusta, GA 30912 (E-mail: dferris{at}mcg.edu)

Purpose: Measurement of intravaginal pH provides a reasonable assessment of vaginal health but is fraught with the potential for several sampling errors. The purposes of the study were to determine the variability of self-sampled vaginal pH among women using an inexpensive swab-based pH test compared with a clinician-obtained specimen, and variability of vaginal pH within 3 regions of the normal vagina.

Methods: In this cross-sectional study, women obtained a vaginal specimen using a cotton-tip applicator, transferred it to pH paper, and interpreted the results. A clinician also blindly interpreted these tests. Thereafter, a clinician obtained 3 swab specimens from the proximal, middle, and distal vagina for pH testing. Results were compared using Wilcoxon signed rank test, interclass correlation coefficients, Bland-Altman plots, and mixed-model analysis of variance.

Results: Interclass correlation coefficients were moderately high comparing subjects with clinician for the swab-based pH test (0.74). Subjects’ swab pH values (4.5) were significantly lower than clinicians’ pH values (4.7, P = .0001). Intravaginal pH did not vary between the 3 anatomic locations.

Conclusions: Self-sampled intravaginal pH interpretations vary slightly compared with clinician-obtained specimens. Because swab pH sampling does not detect an intravaginal pH gradient in normal women, self-sampling technique may vary considerably without affecting outcomes. Our findings support self-sampling for vaginal pH before using over-the-counter products for presumed vaginitis.




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 J Am Board Fam MedHome page
J. Xu, K. Schwartz, M. Bartoces, J. Monsur, R. K. Severson, and J. D. Sobel
Effect of Antibiotics on Vulvovaginal Candidiasis: A MetroNet Study
J Am Board Fam Med, July 1, 2008; 21(4): 261 - 268.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


HOME HELP CONTACT US SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2006 by the American Board of Family Medicine.