4.1 Article

Mycoplasma genitalium:: prevalence, clinical significance, and transmission

Journal

SEXUALLY TRANSMITTED INFECTIONS
Volume 81, Issue 6, Pages 458-462

Publisher

B M J PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/sti.2004.012062

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives: To study the prevalence, symptoms and signs of Mycoplasma genitalium and Chlamydia trachomatis infections in STD clinic attendees and in partners of M genitalium infected patients. Methods: M genitalium and C trachomatis were detected by polymerase chain reaction from urethral and endocervical swab specimens in a cross sectional study among 445 female and 501 male STD clinic attendees. Partners of 26 female and 26 male M genitalium positive index patients were examined. Results: The prevalence of C trachomatis and M genitalium was 4% and 6.3%, respectively, among the women and 5.4% and 6%, respectively, among the men. Dual infections were uncommon. M genitalium was strongly associated with urethritis in both men and women and with cervicitis in women. Among M genitalium infected men, symptomatic urethritis was more common than asymptomatic urethritis. M genitalium and C trachomatis were not associated with symptoms of urethritis or cervicitis in women. Of 26 male partners of M genitalium positive female index patients, 38% were positive, and 77% of the negative partners had symptoms of urethritis. The concordance rate for 22 female partners of male index patients was 45%. For both men and women the M genitalium prevalence was significantly higher in partners of M genitalium positive index patients than in M genitalium negative index patients with urethritis and/or cervicitis. Conclusions: M genitalium is associated with urethritis in both men and women and with cervicitis in women. A high concordance rate was found among sexual partners of M genitalium infected patients, indicating that the infection is sexually transmitted.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available