A comparative study of clinical management strategies for vaginal discharge in family planning and genitourinary medicine settings

4Citations
Citations of this article
24Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Objective: To compare strategies for management of women with vaginal discharge in genitourinary medicine (GUM) and family planning (FP) settings. Methods: The setting was a centre housing both FP and GUM departments within a primary care trust in Scotland. The study participants were 200 women presenting with vaginal discharge. A randomised, controlled, crossover design was employed. Strategies typical of FP and GUM were performed on every participant in a randomised sequence. Day 1 diagnoses were made by the FP strategy (history and examination) and the GUM strategy (near-patient microscopy added). Day 7 results were obtained from final analysis of all specimens. Days 1 and 7 results were compared with the reference standard provided by all the test results. The main outcome measures were incorrect diagnoses on Days 1 and 7. Results: On Day 1 the FP strategy resulted in significantly more incorrect diagnoses than the GUM strategy when compared with the reference standard (73 vs 32; p<0.001). On Day 7 the GUM strategy resulted in significantly more incorrect diagnoses than the FP strategy when compared with the reference standard (32 vs 17; p = 0.019). Conclusions: Vaginal discharge can be managed effectively in community settings such as FP and primary care. The addition of near-patient microscopy produces a more accurate immediate diagnosis. The addition of a high vaginal swab for culture produces a more accurate final diagnosis. The costs of on-site microscopy must be considered.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Melville, C., Nandwani, R., Bigrigg, A., & McMahon, A. D. (2005). A comparative study of clinical management strategies for vaginal discharge in family planning and genitourinary medicine settings. Journal of Family Planning and Reproductive Health Care, 31(1), 26–30. https://doi.org/10.1783/0000000052973112

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free