Variability of vaginal pH determination by patients and clinicians.

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.

[1]  D. Harper,et al.  Randomized clinical trial of PCR-determined human papillomavirus detection methods: self-sampling versus clinician-directed--biologic concordance and women's preferences. , 2002, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.

[2]  L. Sharp,et al.  Impact of Vaginal Antifungal Products on Utilization of Health Care Services: Evidence from Physician Visits , 2000, The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine.

[3]  E. Saling,et al.  A simple, efficient and inexpensive program for preventing prematurity , 2001, Journal of perinatal medicine.

[4]  D. Ramos,et al.  Improving Appropriate Use of Antifungal Medications: The Role of an Over-the-Counter Vaginal pH Self-Test Device , 2003, Infectious diseases in obstetrics and gynecology.

[5]  E. Hemminki,et al.  Self-medication with vaginal antifungal drugs: physicians' experiences and women's utilization patterns. , 2000, Family practice.

[6]  N. Lowe,et al.  A Clinical Test of Women’s Self-Diagnosis of Genitourinary Infections , 2000, Clinical nursing research.

[7]  K. Tebb,et al.  Home STI testing: the adolescent female's opinion. , 2004, The Journal of adolescent health : official publication of the Society for Adolescent Medicine.

[8]  K. Shah,et al.  The acceptability of self-collected samples for HPV testing vs. the pap test as alternatives in cervical cancer screening. , 2002, Journal of women's health & gender-based medicine.

[9]  E. Hafez,et al.  The Human vagina , 1978 .

[10]  D. Ferris,et al.  Women's use of over-the-counter antifungal medications for gynecologic symptoms. , 1996, The Journal of family practice.

[11]  J. Sellors,et al.  Prevalence of Chlamydia trachomatis Infections and Specimen Collection Preference Among Women, Using Self-Collected Vaginal Swabs in Community Settings , 2003, Sexually transmitted diseases.

[12]  D. Soper Gynecologic complications of bacterial vaginosis: Fact or fiction? , 1999, Current infectious disease reports.

[13]  P. Hillemanns,et al.  Primary cervical cancer screening by self-sampling of human papillomavirus DNA in internal medicine outpatient clinics. , 2004, Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

[14]  J. Wardle,et al.  Attitudes to self-sampling for HPV among Indian, Pakistani, African-Caribbean and white British women in Manchester, UK , 2004, Journal of medical screening.

[15]  M. Lipsky,et al.  The "prescription-to-OTC switch" movement. Its effects on antifungal vaginitis preparations. , 1999, Archives of family medicine.

[16]  C. Boyer,et al.  Comparing First-Void Urine Specimens, Self-Collected Vaginal Swabs, and Endocervical Specimens To Detect Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhoeae by a Nucleic Acid Amplification Test , 2003, Journal of Clinical Microbiology.

[17]  T. V. Van Geem,et al.  Evaluating vaginal pH. Accuracy of two commercial pH papers in comparison to a hand-held digital pH meter. , 1999, The Journal of reproductive medicine.

[18]  R William Soller,et al.  Over-the-counter antifungal drug misuse associated with patient-diagnosed vulvovaginal candidiasis. , 2002, Obstetrics and gynecology.

[19]  D. Harper,et al.  Factors Affecting the Detection Rate of Human Papillomavirus , 2003, The Annals of Family Medicine.

[20]  L. Morison,et al.  Comparison of non-invasive sampling methods for detection of HPV in rural African women , 2005, Sexually Transmitted Infections.

[21]  S. Garland,et al.  Evaluation of Self-Collected Samples in Contrast to Practitioner-Collected Samples for Detection of Chlamydia trachomatis, Neisseria gonorrhoeae, and Trichomonas vaginalis by Polymerase Chain Reaction Among Women Living in Remote Areas , 2002, Sexually transmitted diseases.

[22]  D. Provencher,et al.  Self-sampling is associated with increased detection of human papillomavirus DNA in the genital tract of HIV-seropositive women. , 2005, Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America.

[23]  H. Wiesenfeld,et al.  The infrequent use of office-based diagnostic tests for vaginitis. , 1999, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.

[24]  K. Holmes,et al.  Nonspecific vaginitis: Diagnostic criteria and microbial and epidemiologic associations , 1983 .