MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401317765 · doi:10.54645/202417suppyd-19

A systematic review and meta-analysis on the prevalence of vulvovaginal candidiasis in Southeast Asian countries

2024· review· en· W4401317765 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Robbi Miguel G. Falcon, Renne Margaret U. Alcazar, Justin Guda, Ourlad Alzeus G. Tantengco

Bibliographic record

VenueSciEnggJ · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicReproductive tract infections research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMeta-analysisCINAHLMedicineDemographyPublic healthCross-sectional studyMEDLINEEnvironmental healthInternal medicinePsychological interventionPathologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Vulvovaginal candidiasis (VVC) is a disease caused by pathogenic Candida species. This disease typically affects women of reproductive age with high sexual activity (i.e., sex workers), poor educational attainment and economic status, and infrequent hygiene practices. VVC remains a major public health concern. VVC prevalence across Southeast Asian countries remains poorly understood. To address this concern, the current study estimated the current prevalence of VVC infections among women in Southeast Asian countries by conducting a systematic review and meta-analyses. All studies reporting the prevalence of VVC in Southeast Asia were obtained from Ovid Medline, Scopus, and CINAHL. A review of titles and abstracts was done independently by three reviewers. The quality of the studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Meta-analysis was performed in R v.4.1,1 using the ‘meta’ package (version 4.19-0). Based on the results of the current study, the pooled estimated prevalence of VVC among Southeast Asian women is 23.0% (95% CI: 18.0% to 28.0%). Across countries, Laos had the highest estimated prevalence at 33.0% (95% CI: 22.0% to 46.0%). Subgroup analysis based on pregnancy status and occupation revealed a higher estimated prevalence among non-pregnant women (32.0%, 95% CI: 25.0% to 40.0%) and non-sex workers (33.0%, 95% CI: 20.0% to 48.0%). Based on the diagnostic method, the prevalence was higher for the combinatorial approach using microscopy, a culture-based approach, and molecular techniques (51.0%) and lowest when solely based on clinical diagnosis (9.0%, 95% CI: 1.0% to 22.0%) or an exclusively culture-based approach (11%, 95% CI: 6.0% to 18.0%). Overall, further study is necessary to accurately characterize the current distribution of VVC across Southeast Asian countries. Developing more effective diagnostic and management strategies is to improve the health of affected women.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.033
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.076

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.033
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0180.037
Bibliometrics0.0090.011
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.085
GPT teacher head0.385
Teacher spread0.300 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSciEnggJSame topicReproductive tract infections researchFrench-language works237,207