Chlamydia trachomatis, human papillomavirus, bacterial vaginosis and cervical neoplasia

Abstract

the other point is about some references. Figure 2a showed a graphic representation of approximated Ct DNA prevalence (%) in hPV-positive women, cervical neoplasia and/or invasive cervical cancer observed in some countries around the world. Look at references 62 and 70, both were cited as Brazilian studies but the analysis was conducted on Indians; another reference (69) described Colombian and not Brazilian patients. Although the merit of the paper is its expressiveness, I think these wrong citations must be corrected.Conflict of interest I declare no conflict of interest in the letter to editor "Chlamydia trachomatis, human papillomavirus, bacterial vaginosis and cervical neoplasia" eddie Murta. [1] recently published in Arch Gynecol Obstet show studies about possible association between Ct and hPV. the review is well conducted; nonetheless, two points could be addressed. First, the possible association among hPV, Ct and BV must be discussed. In a meta-analysis [3], 12 eligible studies were selected to review the association between BV and hPV (total of 6,372 women). the overall estimated odds ratio (Or) showed a positive association between BV and cervical hPV infection (Or 1.43; 95 % confidence interval 1.11-1.84). Other study [2] in pregnant women on association among hPV, Ct and BV showed that compared to the group of pregnant women without hPV infection, those with hPV infection had a higher prevalence of BV (53.8 vs. 15.4 %; p = 0.007), and Ct (34.6 vs. 7.7 %; p = 0.039). All cases of Ct and BV had high-grade hPV infection.