ArticleBMC pregnancy and childbirth2026
The impact of Vaginal Flora Screening in the third trimester on pregnancy outcomes in primiparas undergoing vaginal delivery: a retrospective cohort study.
Article in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe necessity of third-trimester vaginal flora screening remains debated. This study aims to evaluate the association between third-trimester vaginal flora screening and pregnancy outcomes among primiparous women undergoing vaginal delivery, as well as neonatal health outcomes.
methodsThis study enrolled 1,380 primiparous women with singleton pregnancies who underwent GBS screening alone or combined GBS plus vaginal flora screening at 35-37 weeks of gestation. Participants were categorized into two cohorts: Group A (GBS screening only; n = 880) and Group B (GBS plus vaginal flora screening; n = 500). Group B was further stratified into Group C (vaginal flora-negative; n = 229) and Group D (vaginal flora-positive; n = 271). After excluding 40 women with positive GBS results from Group D, the remaining 231 women constituted Group E. Clinical data were collected for each group, and intergroup differences were analyzed.
resultsCompared with Group B, Group A exhibited significantly higher rates of intrapartum fever, cesarean delivery, and premature rupture of membranes (p < 0.05). Neonatal outcomes were also less favorable in Group A, with higher NICU admission rates and a greater incidence of pathological jaundice, as well as lower Apgar scores than in Group B (all p < 0.05). Within Group B, Group D had significantly higher rates of intrapartum fever, abnormal routine blood test results, meconium-stained amniotic fluid (≥ grade Ⅲ), and postpartum hemorrhage than Group C (p < 0.05); however, no significant differences in neonatal outcomes were observed between Groups C and D (p > 0.05). After excluding GBS-positive cases, Group E likewise showed higher rates of intrapartum fever, abnormal routine blood test results, and postpartum hemorrhage compared with Group C (p < 0.05), while neonatal outcomes did not differ significantly between Groups C and E (p > 0.05).
conclusionsAbnormal vaginal flora colonization is associated with an increased risk of maternal perinatal infection, without a corresponding increase in neonatal infection. These findings support the implementation of third-trimester vaginal flora screening and appropriate treatment for pregnant women planning vaginal delivery.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.