Department of GUM, St George's Hospital, Blackshaw Road,London SW17 0QT;
United Kingdom.
Title:
Defining bacterial vaginosis: To BV or not to BV, that is the question. (1996 2627)
Source:
International Journal of STD and AIDS. Vol 7(4) (pp33-235), 1996.
Abstract:
The history of bacterial vaginosis (BV), now extending over more than 40 years, has been remarkable not only in terms of repeatedly changing the name of the bacterium that we now know as Gardnerella vaginalis but also in relation to what is thought to constitute the condition, what it should be called and how the diagnosis can best be made. The composite clinical criteria are often confusing for the non-specialist, provide room for inter-observer error, and misinterpretation of just one criterion can lead to considerable over or under diagnosis. There is no doubt that diagnosis should be through a Gram-stained vaginal smear, allowing detection not only of 'full blown' BV but also patterns of vaginal flora that while not in this category are nevertheless abnormal. Accurate diagnosis is important in view of the ever-growing list of other important conditions that may occur as a consequence of the abnormal flora. In addition to this, we raise the question of whether the name and abbreviation BV is the best either scientifically or from the point of view of the lay public. While recognizing that it now may be too ingrained for further change, is it possible to have a better term, at least for lay use?.
The aim of this web site is to provide a general guide and it is not intended as a substitute for a consultation with an appropriate specialist in respect of individual care and treatment.
