Abstract
Bacterial vaginosis is the commonest cause of vaginal discharge in sexually active females. It is often associated with adverse pregnancy outcomes and increased susceptibility to other sexually transmitted diseases. In the present study, we evaluated efficacy of OSOM BV Blue test and compared it with conventional methods like Gram staining and Amsel’s criteria for diagnosing bacterial vaginosis. A total of 635 females attending gynaecology OPD and antenatal clinic with complaints of vaginal discharge were included in the study along with 50 healthy females as controls. Two vaginal swabs were collected aseptically from each patient. One swab was used for Gram staining and the other for OSOM BV Blue test. Amine test and vaginal pH test as defined in Amsel’s criteria were also performed. Bacterial vaginosis was detected in 60.8% of patients. OSOM BV Blue test detected maximum number of cases with sensitivity and specificity of 95.3 and 92.1%, respectively. Thus, it can be used as a point-of-care test useful in making rapid and accurate diagnosis of bacterial vaginosis in setups lacking microscopic facilities or technical expertise. Key words: OSOM BV Blue test, Gram staining, Amsel’s criteria, bacterial vaginosis.
Highlights
Since the use of antibiotics has negative effects on animals and environment, several alternative strategies such as probiotic bacteria have been suggested (Lauzon et al, 2008; Pan et al, 2008)
Some lactic acid bacteria (LAB) are normal microbiota in the gastrointestinal (GI) tract of healthy aquaculture animals that can be used as probiotic (Kim and Austin, 2008)
Probiotic bacteria appears to have a wide variety of benefits such as lactose digestion, resistance to enteric pathogens, anti-colon cancer effect, small bowel bacteria overgrowth, allergy, immune system modulation and reduction in serum cholesterol to the host (Cebeci and Gurakan, 2003; Salminen et al, 2004)
Summary
Since the use of antibiotics has negative effects on animals and environment, several alternative strategies such as probiotic bacteria have been suggested (Lauzon et al, 2008; Pan et al, 2008). Probiotic bacteria appears to have a wide variety of benefits such as lactose digestion, resistance to enteric pathogens, anti-colon cancer effect, small bowel bacteria overgrowth, allergy, immune system modulation and reduction in serum cholesterol to the host (Cebeci and Gurakan, 2003; Salminen et al, 2004). Some properties such as acid and bile salt tolerance, antibacterial activity against pathogens and antibiotic susceptibility are important tools to be investigated, when selecting potential probiotic bacteria (Cebeci and Gurakan, 2003; Balcázar et al, 2008; Pan et al, 2008). Challenge tests have been suggested as a golden standard to be included when evaluating probiotics (Aly et al, 2008) and the resistance to enteric pathogens (Cebeci and Gurakan, 2003)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
