Performance of Swabs, Lavage, and Diluents to Quantify Biomarkers of Female Genital Tract Soluble Mucosal Mediators
2011

Best Methods for Collecting Female Genital Tract Samples to Measure Immune Mediators

Sample size: 48 publication 10 minutes Evidence: high

Author Information

Author(s): Dezzutti Charlene S., Hendrix Craig W., Marrazzo Jeanne M., Pan Zhenyu, Wang Lei, Louissaint Nicolette, Kalyoussef Sabah, Torres N. Merna, Hladik Florian, Parikh Urvi, Mellors John, Hillier Sharon L., Herold Betsy C.

Primary Institution: University of Pittsburgh

Hypothesis

What are the optimal methods for collecting samples from the female genital tract to measure immune mediators?

Conclusion

Endocervical swabs and cervicovaginal lavage collected with saline provide the best recovery of immune mediators.

Supporting Evidence

  • Endocervical swabs recovered the highest levels of immune mediators compared to vaginal swabs.
  • Cervicovaginal lavage with saline provided the best recovery of antimicrobial activity.
  • Bacterial vaginosis affected the recovery of certain immune mediators.
  • Swab type did not significantly influence recovery after correcting for protein content.

Takeaway

This study looked at how to best collect samples from women's genital areas to measure immune responses, finding that certain methods work better than others.

Methodology

Samples were collected from 48 women using various swabs and cervicovaginal lavage with different diluents, and immune mediators were measured using Luminex or ELISA.

Potential Biases

Potential bias in participant selection and the influence of bacterial vaginosis on results.

Limitations

The study may not account for all variables affecting immune mediator recovery, and the sample size is limited to one geographic area.

Participant Demographics

Mean age was 30.8 years; 46% African-American, 40% white, 12% Asian, 2% other; 50% had bacterial vaginosis.

Statistical Information

P-Value

p<0.001

Statistical Significance

p<0.001

Digital Object Identifier (DOI)

10.1371/journal.pone.0023136

Want to read the original?

Access the complete publication on the publisher's website

View Original Publication