Our broad search identified 262 articles from the database and 15 more articles by hand-search of references. Of the 277 studies, 12 studies were duplicates. After abstract screening of the 265 remaining articles, 247 studies were excluded since they did not match our inclusion criteria. After full article review of the remaining 18 articles, a total of three studies were excluded for the following reasons (Supplementary Table 1): Two of them focused on the assessment of functional literacy regarding intimate hygiene practice rather than its relation to infections,13,14 and one was a laboratory-based experimental study.4
3.1 Overview of the included studies
Fifteen articles met the inclusion criteria (Fig. 1 and Table 2). Most of the studies were cross-sectional,1,2,7,8,10,15–17 three were case-control,6,18,19 one was a cohort,20 and three were randomized controlled trials (RCT).9,21,22 Four studies were conducted in India,6,8,10,20 four in China,7,15–17 two in Kenya,9,22 one in Pakistan,19 one in Cambodia,2 one in Turkey,18 one in Malawi,1 and one in Jamaica.21 Qualitative or mixed methods studies were not found. All studies were written and published in English. The eligible studies included a minimum of 200 participants1,2 and a maximum of 577,758 participants.20
List of included articles.
PRISMA 2009 flow diagram.
Quality appraisal of all included studies was done according to New-Castle Ottawa Scale11 for non-randomized studies12 for randomized controlled trials. No low-quality studies were noted, and hence no studies were excluded for low quality appraisal.
Most of the studies targeted sexually transmitted infections. Five studies focused on HIV infection5,7,15–17 and blood tests were taken to diagnose it. Two articles investigated the risk of HPV infection,1,2 diagnosed using cervico-vaginal specimens, four articles targeted trichomonas infection,9,10,16,17 detected by endocervical swabs. Chlamydia and Gonorrhea were mentioned in five studies7,9,15–17 and were diagnosed using endocervical swabs. HSV was mentioned in two studies1,16 and syphilis was targeted in four studies7,15–17; both were detected by blood tests. Vaginal swabs were used to detect bacterial vaginosis, targeted in five studies.1,5,6,9,10 Candida infection was mentioned in two studies9,10 where they used vaginal swabs for screening. Two studies screened menstrual cups for Escherichia coli growth and used vaginal swabs to detect S. aureu.9,22 It is important to note that three studies relied on pelvic examination and self-reported symptoms of itching, pain, irritation or discharge.8,20,21
The majority of practices identified were intravaginal douching and insertion of certain cleansing products such as powders, creams, herbs, tablets, sticks, stones, leaves, and traditional products.1,2,15–17,21 Five articles targeted sanitary napkins, pads and cloths,6,9,10,16,18 while two publications studied menstrual cup effects.9,22 Four studies investigated cleansing and washing practices alongside household environment,6,8,10,18 and just one mentioned the use of self-prescribed prophylactic oral antibiotics and vaginal douching.7
Out of the 15 studies that were included, only two showed no association whatsoever between the intimate hygiene practices and the risk of reproductive tract infections.1,22
3.2 Urogenital infection risk and intravaginal practices
Two studies found an association between vaginal douching and history of sexually transmitted diseases (STD) in the last 12 months, but not with current sexually transmitted diseases. The authors concluded that this was explained by the fact that douching was practiced in response to the symptoms of sexually transmitted infections rather than to prevent the infection itself.15,17
Another study suggested that the use of vaginal douching with prophylactic oral antibiotics doubled the risk of developing vaginal infections odds ratio (OR) of 2.9, (95% CI 1.3–6.7). Similarly, the use of prophylactic oral antibiotics only, and prophylactic oral antibiotics with vaginal douching increased the risk of cervical infections with OR of 4.0 (95% CI 1.1–15.4), 4.2 (95% CI 1.7–10.3) and 2.5 (95% CI 1.1–5.7), respectively.7
Though data showed that intravaginal practices are associated with reproductive tract infections, some studies7,15–17 were targeting female sex workers who are already at a higher risk of sexually transmitted infections.23