Talk:Bacterial vaginosis

message: The Diagnosis section appears to be written more for a clinical student or research assistant than for the general public.  We need a more general explanation of the diagnosis.  Anyone know of a source where we could get such information, or of an expert who might know?
Deleted /* Symptoms and signs */ because it's redundant, yet not accurate or complete.
If we want to keep the clinical diagnostic minutiae, I think it needs to be formatted into some sort of chart or table.  Carolfrog 00:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks to Alanmccleod for adding the patient-friendly diagnosis information.  It's much more useful to the casual reader now.  And I now think the clinical stuff is readable enough for professionals without needing to format it into a chart or anything . . . unless someone wanted to do that for fun.  :) —Carolfrog 08:50, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm glad you fixed it.  I didn't notice when that anonymous IP removed it; I'm not sure why they did.  I think it works where it is.  The idea of "current research" might be harder to keep sourced with current citations, and might be a magnet for unsourced information to creep in.  I dunno, though.  ≈≈Carolfrog≈≈♦тос♦ 23:50, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Diagnosis" section 

message: In the "Symptoms" section, there is currently one symptom (smelly abnormal discharge) and the statement that "nearly half of all women with BV don't notice any symptoms."  If there are no noticeable symptoms, then why is it an "infection?"  Are there initially mild symptoms that develop into something worse?  How bad can it get?  Why do we care?  … Just wondering.   :)   Any help would be appreciated.   Carolfrog 00:46, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks to the anonymous user on 27 February 2007 who clarified the noticeable symptoms of BV.  It makes more sense now that many women don't notice any symptoms, but there could still be a bacterial imbalance.  —Carolfrog 08:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Symptoms" section 

message: I might just have been wikifying too many poorly formatted articles, but this one seems fine to me. Why the clean-up tag? Lottie 15:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clean-up tag? 

message: (Part of the WikiProject Medicine effort)
BV = bacterial vaginosis throughout this section.
=== Introduction ===
I recommend adding a reference for the first statement because I think that many women assume that yeast infections are the most common vaginal infections. 
*Possible reference for this line: The new Harvard guide to women's health by Karen J. Carlson, Stephanie A. Eisenstat, Terra Diane Ziporyn, p 74 (http://books.google.com/books?id=Qt4QYzrGyvMC&lpg=PA74&dq=bacterial%20vaginosis&lr=lang_en&as_drrb_is=q&as_minm_is=0&as_miny_is&as_maxm_is=0&as_maxy_is&num=100&as_brr=3&pg=PA74#v=onepage&q=bacterial%20vaginosis&f=false).
The statement about BV not being sexually transmitted isn’t mentioned in the citation listed. Additionally, there is a debate in the literature about whether or not BV is a sexually transmitted disease, so this statement should be changed to reflect the debate. It might also be better to move this sentence later in the article (“Causes section”) to avoid a controversial statement in the introduction.
Agreed--These comments on sexual transmission hardly deserve to be the first thing mentioned about BV.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.252.210.21 (talk) 16:40, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Should use a review article --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:26, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fact and Citation Check 

message: I recommend adding a reference for the first statement because I think that many women assume that yeast infections are the most common vaginal infections. 
*Possible reference for this line: The new Harvard guide to women's health by Karen J. Carlson, Stephanie A. Eisenstat, Terra Diane Ziporyn, p 74 (http://books.google.com/books?id=Qt4QYzrGyvMC&lpg=PA74&dq=bacterial%20vaginosis&lr=lang_en&as_drrb_is=q&as_minm_is=0&as_miny_is&as_maxm_is=0&as_maxy_is&num=100&as_brr=3&pg=PA74#v=onepage&q=bacterial%20vaginosis&f=false).
The statement about BV not being sexually transmitted isn’t mentioned in the citation listed. Additionally, there is a debate in the literature about whether or not BV is a sexually transmitted disease, so this statement should be changed to reflect the debate. It might also be better to move this sentence later in the article (“Causes section”) to avoid a controversial statement in the introduction.
Agreed--These comments on sexual transmission hardly deserve to be the first thing mentioned about BV.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.252.210.21 (talk) 16:40, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction 

message: A source should be added for the first paragraph.
*Good book with description of microbiology of BV: Vaginitis: differential diagnosis and management, by Sebastian Faro (http://books.google.com/books?id=tYZ6IDPvIsIC&lpg=PA25&dq=bacterial%20vaginosis&lr=lang_en&as_drrb_is=q&as_minm_is=0&as_miny_is&as_maxm_is=0&as_maxy_is&num=100&as_brr=3&pg=PA26#v=onepage&q=bacterial%20vaginosis&f=false).
I tagged the second paragraph of this section for clarification because the topics are unorganized, and the section is difficult to follow. Consider dividing this into several sections.
The sentence “It is possible for virgins to get infected with bacterial vaginosis” should be moved to the following paragraph where BV in girls is discussed, and a source should be added.
*Suggested source: Primary Care for Women (2004) Leppert and Peipert. (http://books.google.com/books?id=PiiD0iUNhlIC&lpg=PA77&ots=tKNtPu7kiu&dq=bacterial%20vaginosis%20prepubescent%20girls&pg=PA77#v=onepage&q=bacterial%20vaginosis%20prepubescent%20girls&f=false).
There is some debate in the literature about whether BV is sexually transmitted, so this debate should be mentioned and referenced (see note and reference above). Also, the current reference is a primary source, so a secondary source is important here due to the potential controversy.
The sentence “Rather, BV is a disordering of the chemical and biological balance of the normal flora” does not fit in this section. Consider removing.
^^This (or something like it) should be the second sentence in introduction. 01:17, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Causes 

message: Added citation to 2016 Cochrane review under "Prevention" and edited text to reflect new findings--Archie.west (talk) 06:53, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Treatment 

message: The three sources in this section are not appropriate. The first two link to the main site of two webpages, and I could not verify the referenced information. The third site is an individual’s blog site.
*Suggested reference: Allsworth and Peipert (2007) Prevalence of bacterial vaginosis: 2001-2004 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey data. Obstet Gynecol 109(1): 114-120.
This section could be expanded for completeness.
Factcheck101 23:23, May 4, 2010
Reference is a good one 75.130.213.57 (talk) 01:19, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Should use a review article --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:26, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Epidemiology 

message: This is not a terribly good book  thus removed it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:19, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Book

message: Of microbiome doi:10.1128/CMR.00075-15 JFW | T@lk 22:40, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Good information but medical article content should only be review articles, not single studies. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) (talk) 22:41, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Review