Where are we with partner treatment in bacterial vaginosis? A critical appraisal of the latest systematic review

Sexually Transmitted Diseases

Volumn 40, Issue 6, 2013, Pages 518-

  Madhivanan, Purnima ^a   Barreto, Giselle A ^a   Revawala, Amisha ^a   Anderson, Chelsie ^a   Mckinney, Sheila ^a   Pierre Victor, Dudith ^a  

^a FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CLINICAL RESEARCH; HUMAN; LETTER; MEDICAL LITERATURE; MEDICAL RESEARCH; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW (TOPIC); VAGINITIS;

ANTI-INFECTIVE AGENTS, LOCAL; CIRCUMCISION, MALE; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; PENIS; SEXUAL BEHAVIOR; SEXUAL PARTNERS; VAGINOSIS, BACTERIAL;

EID: 84878891742     PISSN: 01485717     EISSN: 15374521     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/OLQ.0b013e31828fffb2     Document Type: Letter

References (17)

1. Mehta SD. Systematic review of randomized trials of treatment of male sexual partners for improved bacteria vaginosis outcomes in women. Sex Transm Dis 2012; 39:822-830.
2. Potter J. Should sexual partners of women with bacterial vaginosis receive treatment? Br J Gen Pract 1999; 49:913-918.
3. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-anal-ses: The PRISMA statement. BMJ 2009; 339:b2535.
4. Booth A, Clarke M, Ghersi D, et al. An international registry of systematic-review protocols. Lancet 2011; 377:108-109.
5. Jadad AR, McQuay HJ. Searching the literature. Be systematic in-our searching. BMJ 1993; 307:66.
6. Lemeshow AR, Blum RE, Berlin JA, et al. Searching one or two databases was insufficient for meta-analysis of observational studies. J Clin Epidemiol 2005; 58:867-873.
7. PLoS Medicine Editors. Best practice in s-stematic reviews: The importance of protocols and registration. PLoS Med 2011; 8:e1001009.
8. Dickersin K, Scherer R, Lefebvre C. Identifying relevant studies for systematic reviews. BMJ 1994; 309:1286-1291.
9. Larsson PG, Brandsborg E, Forsum U, et al. Extended antimicrobial treatment of bacterial vaginosis combined with human lactobacilli to find the best treatment and minimize the risk of relapses. BMC Infect Dis 2011; 11:223.
10. Koumans EH, Markowitz LE, Hogan V. Indications for therapy and treatment recommendations for bacterial vaginosis in nonpregnant and pregnant women: A synthesis of data. Clin Infect Dis 2002; 35: S152-S172.
11. Eschenbach DA, Critchlow CW, Watkins H, et al. A dose-duration study of metronidazole for the treatment of nonspecific vaginosis. Scand J Infect Dis Suppl 1983; 40:73-80.
12. Hagstrom B, Lindstedt J. Comparison of two different regimens of metronidazole in the treatment of non-specific vaginitis. Scand J Infect Dis Suppl 1983; 40:95-96.
13. Hovik P. Nonspecific vaginitis in an outpatient clinic. Comparison of three dosage regimens of metronidazole. Scand J Infect Dis Suppl 1983; 40:107-110.
14. Jerve F, Berdal TB, Bohman P, et al. Metronidazole in the treatment of non-specific vaginitis (NSV). Br J Vener Dis 1984; 60:171-174.
15. Morrison A, Polisena J, Husereau D, et al. The effect of English-language restriction on systematic review-based meta-analyses: A systematic review of empirical studies. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2012; 28:138-144.
16. Gregoire G, Derderian F, Le Lorier J. Selecting the language of the publications included in a meta-analysis: Is there a Tower of Babel bias? J Clin Epidemiol 1995; 48:159-163.
17. Cook DJ, Guyatt GH, Ryan G, et al. Should unpublished data be included in meta-analyses? Current convictions and controversies. JAMA 1993; 269:2749-2753.