Relationship between vaginal douching and bacterial vaginosis, sexually transmitted diseases and HIV infection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Despite of vaginal douching has been strongly condemned by most of health care professionals; this practice remains a very common habit among women for several reasons. Objective: To assess if there is any association between vaginal douching and bacterial vaginoses, STD and HIV Methods: We conducted a systematic review and metanalysis to evaluate the relationship between vaginal douching and bacterial vaginosis, sexually transmitted diseases and HIV infection. The following databases were searched using Mesh terms: PubMed, Embase, Scielo and Google Scholar. Selection criteria: (1) prospective cohort studies of women using vaginal douching; (2) women 12 years or older and (3) studies published from 2000 to October 2011. Studies involving pregnant women were excluded. Methodological quality was assessed using Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Data collection and analysis: Review Manager 5.1 was used for statistical analysis. Results: Seven studies (2 STD, 3 Bacterial Vaginosis and 2 HIV) were included based on the chosen criteria: 9.796 women were enrolled. The global Risk Ratios for Bacterial Vaginosis, STD and HIV acquisition were, 1.24 (95%CI 1.12–1.43), 1.12 (95%CI 0.94–1.32), and 1.36 (95%CI 0.92–2.01) respectively. Conclusion: There are few studies checking the association between vaginal douching and STD, BV and HIV infection. A weak positive correlation was found between vaginal douching and bacterial vaginosis, but not to STD and HIV infection.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.014 | 0.048 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".