Skip to main content
Have a personal or library account? Click to login
Retrospective Analysis of the Ureaplasma spp. Prevalence with Reference to Other Genital Tract Infections in Women of Reproductive Age Cover

Retrospective Analysis of the Ureaplasma spp. Prevalence with Reference to Other Genital Tract Infections in Women of Reproductive Age

Open Access
|Nov 2022

Figures & Tables

Table I

The prevalence of specific microorganisms across groups of women manifesting or not clinical symptoms.

MicroorganismsMicrobiological methodTotalWithout symptoms (n = 756)With symptoms (n = 399)p*OR*** (95% CI)p**
n (%)n (%)n (%)
Lactobacillus spp.microscopic1,107 (95.8)737 (97.5)370 (92.7)< 0.0010.33
(0.18–0.60)
< 0.001
Gardnerella vaginalismicroscopic, culture56 (4.8)11 (1.5)45 (11.3)< 0.0018.32
(4.30–16.08)
< 0.001
Ureaplasma spp.PCR276 (23.9)108 (14.3)166 (41.6)< 0.0014.26
(3.21–5.66)
< 0.001
Ureaplasma parvumPCR187 (16.2)81 (10.7)106 (26.6)< 0.0013.01
(2.19–4.14)
< 0.001
Ureaplasma urealyticumPCR89 (7.7)27 (3.6)62 (15.5)< 0.0014.91
(3.08–7.83)
< 0.001
Mycoplasma hominisPCR21 (1.8)0 (0.0)21 (5.3)< 0.001#85.94
(5.19–1,422.62)
0.002
Mycoplasma genitaliumPCR2 (0.2)0 (0.0)2 (0.5)0.119#9.62
(0.469.62 –198.69)
0.146
Chlamydia trachomatisPCR8 (0.7)1 (0.1)7 (1.8)0.003#9.62
(1.66–55.79)
0.012
Aerobic bacteria (with GBS)culture153 (13.2)95 (12.6)58 (14.5)0.3961.19
(0.84–1.68)
0.339
Streptococcus group B (GBS)culture88 (7.6)57 (7.5)31 (7.8)0.9811.04
(0.66–1.63)
0.865
Yeastmicroscopic, culture192 (16.6)100 (13.2)92 (23.1)< 0.0011.97
(1.44–2.69)
< 0.001
Neisseria gonorrhoeaeculture
Trichomonas vaginalisculture

[i] * – all p-values denoted by # are from Fisher’s exact test; the remaining comparisons are made with the chi-square test of independence

** – p-values calculated by Wald method using Firth’s logistic regression

*** – OR of prevalence symptoms in women with specific microorganisms detected when compared with those without symptoms

Fig. 1

The prevalence of mycoplasmas and C. trachomatis according to the multiplicity of colonization in the population studied (n = 1,155).

Table II

Association between the prevalence of microorganisms and clinical symptoms – multivariable analyses. The fully adjusted model and the most parsimonious model.

MicroorganismsModel 1*Model 2**
OR*** (95% CI)p**OR*** (95% CI)p**
Ureaplasma parvum3.06
(2.17–4.31)
< 0.0013.07
(2.18–4.31)
< 0.001
Ureaplasma urealyticum5.25
(3.20–8.62)
< 0.0015.20
(3.17–8.51)
< 0.001
Mycoplasma hominis49.30
(3.09–787.71)
0.00648.97
(2.94–815.88)
0.007
Chlamydia trachomatis10.03
(1.66–60.42)
0.01210.04
(1.66–60.66)
0.012
Lactobacillus spp.0.47
(0.23–0.98)
0.0450.48
(0.24–0.94)
0.033
Gardnerella vaginalis3.92
(1.89–8.14)
< 0.0013.87
(1.90–7.91)
< 0.001
Yeast1.73
(1.23–2.43)
0.0021.73
(1.23–2.43)
0.002
DF  12   7
AICc207.5197.8
ΔAICc   9.70.0

[i] * – Model 1 – a fully adjusted model to variables presented in Table II and additionally to Mycoplasma genitalium, Streptococcus group B, aerobic bacteria (with GBS), age, pH > 4.5

** – Model 1 – the most parsimonious model adjusted to variables presented in Table II

*** – OR of prevalence symptoms in women with detected specific microorganisms compared with those without symptoms

Table III

Relationship between the presence of U. parvum and other microorganisms.

MicroorganismsWithout Ureaplasma parvum (n = 968)With Ureaplasma parvum (n = 187)p*OR*** (95% CI)p**
n (%)n (%)
Lactobacillus spp.930 (9 6.1)177 (9 4.7)0.4890.72
(0.35–1.48)
0.372
Garderella vaginalis32 (3 .3)24 (1 2.8)< 0.0014.30
(2.44–7.49)
< 0.001
Chlamydia trachomatis5 (0.5)3 (1.6)0.125#2.60
(0.86–12.81)
0.101
Mycoplasma hominis14 (1.4)7 (3.7)0.064#2.65
(1.05–6.66)
0.0313
Mycoplasma genitalium2 (0.2)0 (0.0)1.000#0.00
(0.05–21.56)
0.534
Ureaplasma urealyticum87 (9 .0)2 (1 .1)< 0.0010.11
(0.03–0.45)
< 0.001
Aerobic bacteria134 (1 3.8)19 (1 0.2)0.2140.70
(0.42–1.17)
0.174
Yeast150 (1 5.5)42 (2 2.5)0.0251.58
(1.07–2.32)
0.019
Streptococcus group B82 (8 .5)6 (3 .2)0.0200.36
(0.14–0.77)
0.017

[i] * all p-values denoted by # are from Fisher’s exact test; the remaining comparisons are made with the chi-square test of independence

** – p-values calculated by Wald method using Firth’s logistic regression

*** – OR of prevalence of specific microorganisms in women with Ureaplasma parvum compared with those without Ureaplasma parvum

Table IV

Relationship between the presence of U. urealyticum and other microorganisms.

MicroorganismsWithout Ureaplasma urealyticum (n = 1,066)With Ureaplasma urealyticum (n = 89)p*OR*** (95% CI)p**
n (%)n (%)
Lactobacillus spp.1,024 (96.1)83 (9 3.3)0.3190.57
(0.23–1.37)
0.203
Garderella vaginalis43 (4 .0)13 (1 4.6)< 0.0014.07
(2.10–7.89)
< 0.001
Chlamydia trachomatis8 (0.8)0 (0.0)1.000#0.00
(0.04–12.15)
0.412
Mycoplasma hominis13 (1.2)8 (9.0)< 0.001#8
(3.22–19.86)
< 0.001
Mycoplasma genitalium1 (0.1)1 (1.1)0.148#5.98
(1.24–116.95)
0.025
Ureaplasma parvum185 (1 7.4)2 (2 .2)< 0.0010.11
(0.03–0.45)
< 0.001
Aerobic bacteria137 (1 2.9)16 (1 8.0)0.2271.48
(0.84–2.63)
0.171
Yeast173 (1 6.2)19 (2 1.3)0.2721.40
(0.82–2.39)
0.213
Streptococcus group B77 (7 .2)11 (1 2.4)0.1221.81
(0.88–3.42)
0.083

[i] * – all p-values denoted by # are from Fisher’s exact test; the remaining comparisons are made with the chi-square test of independence

** – p-values calculated by Wald method using Firth’s logistic regression

*** – OR of prevalence specific microorganisms in women with Ureaplasma urealyticum compared with those without Ureaplasma urealyticum

Table V

Relationship between the detection of Ureaplasma spp. and pH > 4.5 regarding Gardnerella vaginalis coinfections.

pH ≤ 4.5 n (%)pH > 4.5 n (%)OR*** (95% CI)p**
Ureaplasma spp.180 (1 5.6%)94 (8 .1%)2.1
(1.56–2.84)
< 0.005
Ureaplasma Garnerella vaginalis spp. without coinfection173 (15.7%)65 (5.9%)1.60
(1.15–2.24)
0.004

[i] ** – p-values calculated by Wald method using Firth’s logistic regression

*** – OR of prevalence pH > 4.5 in women with Ureaplasma spp. (without Garderella vaginalis coinfection) compared with those without Ureaplasma spp. infection

Table VI

Distribution of vaginal pH values in women with and without the presence of specific microorganisms.

MicroorganismsNot prevalentPrevalentp*pH > 4.5 OR (95% CI)**p**
nQ2 (Q1-Q3)nQ2 (Q1-Q3)
Lactobacillus spp.485.5 (5.0–5.5)1,1074.5 (4.0–4.5)< 0.001  0.01 (0.00–0.05)< 0.001
Gardnerella vaginalis1,0994.5 (4.0–4.5)565.0 (4.9–5.5)< 0.00111.18 (6.05–20.65)< 0.001
Ureaplasma spp.8814.5 (4.0–4.5)2744.5 (4.5–5.0)< 0.001  2.09 (1.55–2.82)< 0.001
Ureaplasma parvum9684.5 (4.0–4.5)1874.5 (4.5–5.0)0.001  1.71 (1.21–2.41)0.002
Ureaplasma urealyticum1,0664.5 (4.0–4.5)894.5 (4.5–5.0)0.004  2.42 (1.55–3.78)< 0.001
Mycoplasma hominis1,1344.5 (4.0–4.5)214.5 (4.5–5.0)0.008  3.07 (1.31–7.16)0.010
Aerobic bacteria (with GBS)1,0024.5 (4.0–4.5)1535.0 (4.5–5.0)< 0.001  7.44 (5.17–10.69)< 0.001
Streptococcus group B1,0674.5 (4.0–4.5)885.0 (4.5–5.1)< 0.001  5.89 (3.76–9.24)< 0.001
Yeast9634.5 (4.0–4.5)1924.5 (4.5–5.0)0.003  1.49 (1.06–2.10)0.023

[i] * – based on Mann-Whitney U test

** – based on logistic regression, crude models, Firth method, OR of prevalence pH > 4.5 in women with specific microorganisms compared with those without their presence Q2 (Q1-Q3) – median (interquartile range)

Table VII

Association between the prevalence of microorganisms and pH > 4.5 – multivariable analyses.

The fully adjusted model and the most parsimonious model.

MicroorganismsModel 1*Model 2**
OR (95% CI)p***OR (95% CI)p***
Ureaplasma parvum1.81 (1.21–2.73)0.0041.86 (1.24–2.79)0.003
Ureaplasma urealyticum2.23 (1.31–3.78)0.0032.32 (1.37–3.92)0.002
Lactobacillus spp.0.03 (0.01–0.11)< 0.0010.03 (0.01–0.11)< 0.001
Gardnerella vaginalis5.91 (2.91–12.00)< 0.0016.54 (3.25–13.18)< 0.001
Aerobic bacteria (with GBS)7.31 (4.14–12.91)< 0.0016.85 (4.61–10.18)< 0.001
DF  11  5
AICc287.7275.0
ΔAICc  12.7  0.0

[i] * – Model 1 – fully adjusted model variables presented in the Table and additionally to yeast, Streptococcus group B, Mycoplasma hominis, Mycoplasma genitalium, Chlamydia trachomatis, and age

** – Model 2 – the most parsimonious model, adjusted to variables presented in the Table; OR of prevalence pH > 4.5

*** – p-values calculated by the Wald method using Firth’s logistic regression

Fig. 2

Distribution of vaginal pH values in women with and without the presence of specific microorganisms. Dots denote extreme values; vertical segments are placed at median values, and boxes are located at quartile values. All differences in pH levels between groups were statistically significant.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.33073/pjm-2022-044 | Journal eISSN: 2544-4646 | Journal ISSN: 1733-1331
Language: English
Page range: 509 - 518
Submitted on: Jun 1, 2022
Accepted on: Sep 11, 2022
Published on: Nov 20, 2022
Published by: Polish Society of Microbiologists
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: 4 issues per year

© 2022 Katarzyna Rak, Aneta Kiecka, Joanna Białecka, Anna Kawalec, Paweł Krzyściak, Anna Białecka, published by Polish Society of Microbiologists
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License.