Back To Search Results

Amsel Criteria

Editor: Beverly A. Mikes Updated: 1/31/2026 9:42:28 PM

Introduction

Amsel criteria are used for the clinical diagnosis of bacterial vaginosis and consist of 4 bedside findings as follows:

  • A thin, uniform, gray-white to yellow, homogeneous vaginal discharge
  • An elevated vaginal pH greater than 4.5
  • Release of a characteristic fishy odor after adding 10% potassium hydroxide (KOH) solution to the wet mount—also known as the whiff test
  • Identification of clue cells on wet mount microscopy

Clue cells are vaginal epithelial cells coated with bacteria. A diagnosis of bacterial vaginosis is made when at least 3 of the 4 Amsel criteria are present, making the Amsel criteria a practical diagnostic approach when other testing is unavailable.

Bacterial vaginosis is widely recognized as the most common cause of vaginal disorders in females of reproductive age. The condition is present in an estimated 10% to 20% of White females and 30% to 50% of Black females.[1] Estimates for the exact percentage of females afflicted at any given time vary from as low as 5% to as high as 70% worldwide.[2] If symptomatic, patients often complain of vaginal discharge having a classic fishy odor; however, many individuals remain asymptomatic until detection during a routine vaginal examination.[3]

If left untreated, bacterial vaginosis may lead to several complications, including inflammation of endometrial or cervical tissue, urinary tract infection, chronic pelvic pain, increased risk of acquiring HIV and other sexually transmitted infections, a higher risk of ectopic pregnancy, and difficulty conceiving.[4] During pregnancy, the consequences of bacterial vaginosis may be even more severe and include the potential for premature labor and delivery, prelabor rupture of membranes, and low birth weight.[5]

Treatment for bacterial vaginosis generally involves antibiotic therapy, administered either orally or as an intravaginal gel. The most commonly used antimicrobial agents include metronidazole or clindamycin. Despite treatment, cure rates range from 65% to 85%, and many women experience a relapse in the weeks or months following treatment.[6]

The Nugent scoring system has long been regarded as the laboratory gold standard for diagnosing bacterial vaginosis. The Amsel criteria, introduced by R Amsel, PA Totten, CA Spiegel, and colleagues in a 1983 American Journal of Medicine publication, provided a clinically based diagnostic approach that built on earlier Gram stain–based methods, such as the Spiegel criteria. In 1991, Nugent and colleagues later refined the microscopic evaluation by introducing a standardized scoring system. The Nugent method involves examining Gram-stained vaginal smears under oil immersion and assessing at least 10 high-power fields to quantify 3 bacterial morphotypes—Lactobacillus, Gardnerella, and curved gram-negative rods. Each of these 3 categories receives a score based on the number of bacteria counted. Subsequently, these 3 scores are summed to yield a total score ranging from 0 to 10. The scoring is as follows:

  • 0-3: Negative for bacterial vaginosis
  • 4-6: Intermediate
  • 7+: Positive for bacterial vaginosis [7]

Although the Amsel and modified Amsel criteria are practical and easily performed at the bedside, the Nugent scoring system remains the diagnostic gold standard. The Nugent method is both reliable and cost-effective.[8] However, despite its accuracy, many clinicians regarded it as cumbersome because it requires specialized microscopy skills and is time-consuming due to the need for manual bacterial quantification. Consequently, the Amsel criteria have largely replaced the Nugent system in many clinical settings. Noted limitations of the Amsel criteria include subjectivity in interpretation and reduced reliability in menopausal women, in whom hormonal changes can alter vaginal pH.

The Amsel criteria, initially published in the American Journal of Medicine in 1983, provide a more accessible, clinically defined basis for diagnosing bacterial vaginosis with only 4 criteria. Although older and seemingly more straightforward, the Amsel criteria have been shown to be comparable to the Nugent scoring system in diagnostic accuracy.[9] The Amsel criteria are generally preferred for their ease and reliance on basic observational microscopy. The Gram stain of vaginal discharge or the Nugent score is the gold standard test for diagnosing bacterial vaginosis.[10] The culture of vaginal discharge is not used to diagnose bacterial vaginosis.

Function

Register For Free And Read The Full Article
Get the answers you need instantly with the StatPearls Clinical Decision Support tool. StatPearls spent the last decade developing the largest and most updated Point-of Care resource ever developed. Earn CME/CE by searching and reading articles.
  • Dropdown arrow Search engine and full access to all medical articles
  • Dropdown arrow 10 free questions in your specialty
  • Dropdown arrow Free CME/CE Activities
  • Dropdown arrow Free daily question in your email
  • Dropdown arrow Save favorite articles to your dashboard
  • Dropdown arrow Emails offering discounts

Learn more about a Subscription to StatPearls Point-of-Care

Function

The Amsel criteria are used to diagnose bacterial vaginosis. These criteria are particularly helpful in situations where the diagnostician's microscopic experience, availability of microscope tools, or time is limited. The diagnosis requires the presence of 3 out of 4 criteria.[11] Recent literature has proposed a modification that allows diagnosis when only 2 of the 4 criteria are met—an approach referred to as the modified Amsel criteria.

Modified Amsel criteria remove the whiff test or vaginal pH measurement and rely more heavily on microscopy and clinical appearance. However, it is not a single, universally standardized definition. The diagnosis of bacterial vaginosis is made when 2 of the 3 criteria are present:

  • Characteristic thin, homogeneous vaginal discharge
  • Presence of clue cells on wet mount microscopy
  • Elevated vaginal pH (>4.5)

Modified Amsel criteria save time and resources, avoid the subjective and sometimes unpleasant whiff test, and are especially practical in outpatient clinics or resource-limited settings.

Issues of Concern

One particular concern with the Amsel criteria is that, although the required microscopy is less complex, it still requires competent use of a microscope to identify clue cells. Although most diagnosticians should be able to perform basic microscopic examinations without much difficulty, those with visual limitations or limited or distant experience with microscopy may be at a disadvantage. Clinicians without access to a microscope are entirely unable to perform this test.

The Amsel criteria also require the retrieval of vaginal discharge. Although this can generally be performed without much patient discomfort, some healthcare providers may be inclined to accept the patient's report of symptoms, such as discharge or a fishy smell, as a positive criterion without collecting physical samples. Notably, in the context of the Amsel criteria, the whiff test is considered positive only after applying KOH solution to the vaginal sample on a wet mount. Patient report of fish-smelling discharge does not constitute a positive whiff test, and therefore may not be considered a positive criterion.

Moreover, as mentioned above, it has been suggested that the Amsel criteria, although an improvement on Nugent scoring, should be further simplified to require only 2 out of 4 criteria to be considered a positive test. One study, in particular, found that using a combination of any 2 positive Amsel criteria had 99% to 100% specificity. In fact, the presence of clue cells alone was 98% specific and 89.9% sensitive for bacterial vaginosis.[12] This fact suggests that there is room to update and further simplify the Amsel criteria while still providing accurate results. 

Conversely, it is essential to note that, although the specificity of the Amsel criteria is generally regarded as achieving the 99th percentile, reports of sensitivity vary widely, with some studies reporting a sensitivity of only 37%.[13] There is no known explanation for this discrepancy.

Amsel criteria have a higher positive predictive value (76.32%) and specificity (92.31%) than Nugent scoring. Modified Amsel criteria have higher sensitivity (96.97%) and negative predictive value (98.75%). 

Nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT)–based testing is a molecular method used to detect the genetic material (DNA or RNA) of specific microorganisms with high sensitivity and specificity. NAAT amplifies tiny amounts of microbial DNA or RNA from a sample, making it easier to detect organisms that might be missed by culture or microscopy. This method is now commonly used in diagnosing bacterial vaginosis by detecting condition-associated bacteria. The advantages of NAAT-based testing include the ability to detect infections even when the bacterial load is low, and a very high sensitivity and specificity.

Clinical Significance

Amsel criteria are clinically significant because they provide a rapid, low-cost, and accessible method for diagnosing bacterial vaginosis at the point of care. Timely identification using these criteria allows for prompt treatment, which can reduce symptoms, prevent recurrence, and lower the risk of complications such as sexually transmitted infections and adverse reproductive outcomes. The use of Amsel criteria is particularly valuable in outpatient settings where laboratory-based diagnostics are unavailable or impractical. The presence of 3 out of 4 positive criteria indicates that the cause of a patient's vaginal complaints is bacterial vaginosis. Use of the Amsel criteria requires a vaginal swab of discharge, a microscope and slide/wet preparation, and KOH solution. The Amsel criteria allow diagnosticians to narrow the broad differential diagnosis of vaginal discharge and discomfort with quick, simple testing.

Other Issues

As stated above, the Amsel criteria currently comprise 4 parameters. However, recent studies suggest that the exact number needed to accurately diagnose bacterial vaginosis may be further narrowed.

In recent years, other diagnostic methods have been under investigation, though there is not yet sufficient evidence to call one of these a new gold standard. Several new methods are under investigation, including DNA hybridization and variants of the polymerase chain reaction.[14][15][16]

Enhancing Healthcare Team Outcomes

Bacterial vaginosis is a prevalent cause of vaginal disorders in women of reproductive age. Patients with these complaints often present with only a vague sign or symptom, such as vaginal discomfort. The cause of vaginal discomfort poses a broad differential diagnosis, including abdominal, pelvic, or urinary tract causes. This condition must be detected and treated to prevent future complications, particularly in pregnancy. 

The family practitioner, nurse practitioner, or gynecologist is often the first line of defense in managing cases of vaginal discomfort. Yet it is crucial to involve other members of the patient care team, including nurses, medical assistants, and obstetricians. An interprofessional approach is optimal for patient care in this regard; obstetricians, gynecologists, pediatricians, and family practitioners should consider bacterial vaginosis when patients complain of vaginal symptoms. Patients sometimes find it easier to report symptoms to a familiar or less intimidating healthcare professional. Nurses and medical assistants are vital in this regard and should review the patient's list of concerns and report pertinent complaints to the clinician.

Conditions involving changes to vaginal secretions can be embarrassing for patients and should receive treatment quickly with the minimum invasiveness necessary. The Amsel criteria should be used to facilitate efficient, straightforward diagnosis and thereby decrease the prevalence of bacterial vaginosis and its numerous potentially more severe complications. The United States Preventive Services Task Force does not at this time recommend screening for bacterial vaginosis in asymptomatic or low-risk women; however, when suspicion is high, the Amsel criteria are recommended as the diagnostic tool of choice. When detected and adequately treated, the cure rate can reach 80%, preventing further serious complications.[17]

Nursing, Allied Health, and Interprofessional Team Interventions

Nursing alone cannot be responsible for using the Amsel criteria. Meaningful participation from nursing includes making a slide, KOH solution, and a vaginal swab available, along with a speculum and gown for all patients who present with vaginal discharge complaints. Amsel criteria provide a practical, bedside method for diagnosing bacterial vaginosis and are commonly used by advanced practice clinicians and other allied health professionals. Accurate assessment requires coordinated interprofessional teamwork, including proper specimen collection, point-of-care testing, and microscopic evaluation. Nurses and allied health team members play a key role in patient education, symptom monitoring, and ensuring timely treatment, while collaboration with clinicians and laboratory staff supports accurate diagnosis and continuity of care.

References


[1]

Patterson JL, Stull-Lane A, Girerd PH, Jefferson KK. Analysis of adherence, biofilm formation and cytotoxicity suggests a greater virulence potential of Gardnerella vaginalis relative to other bacterial-vaginosis-associated anaerobes. Microbiology (Reading, England). 2010 Feb:156(Pt 2):392-399. doi: 10.1099/mic.0.034280-0. Epub 2009 Nov 12     [PubMed PMID: 19910411]


[2]

Sobel JD. Bacterial vaginosis. Annual review of medicine. 2000:51():349-56     [PubMed PMID: 10774469]


[3]

Reiter S, Kellogg Spadt S. Bacterial vaginosis: a primer for clinicians. Postgraduate medicine. 2019 Jan:131(1):8-18. doi: 10.1080/00325481.2019.1546534. Epub 2018 Nov 30     [PubMed PMID: 30424704]


[4]

Senok AC, Verstraelen H, Temmerman M, Botta GA. Probiotics for the treatment of bacterial vaginosis. The Cochrane database of systematic reviews. 2009 Oct 7:(4):CD006289. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD006289.pub2. Epub 2009 Oct 7     [PubMed PMID: 19821358]

Level 1 (high-level) evidence

[5]

Marrazzo JM. Vaginal biofilms and bacterial vaginosis: of mice and women. The Journal of infectious diseases. 2013 May 15:207(10):1481-3. doi: 10.1093/infdis/jit050. Epub 2013 Feb 19     [PubMed PMID: 23431034]

Level 3 (low-level) evidence

[6]

Donders GG, Zodzika J, Rezeberga D. Treatment of bacterial vaginosis: what we have and what we miss. Expert opinion on pharmacotherapy. 2014 Apr:15(5):645-57. doi: 10.1517/14656566.2014.881800. Epub 2014 Feb 28     [PubMed PMID: 24579850]

Level 3 (low-level) evidence

[7]

Nugent RP, Krohn MA, Hillier SL. Reliability of diagnosing bacterial vaginosis is improved by a standardized method of gram stain interpretation. Journal of clinical microbiology. 1991 Feb:29(2):297-301     [PubMed PMID: 1706728]


[8]

Mishra G, Gupta K, Mohanty S, Mitra S, Jena S. Evaluation of various diagnostic modalities for detection of bacterial vaginosis and aerobic vaginitis: An underdiagnosed entity among women of the reproductive age group. Indian journal of pathology & microbiology. 2025 Jul 1:68(3):562-567. doi: 10.4103/ijpm.ijpm_459_24. Epub 2025 May 22     [PubMed PMID: 40405679]


[9]

Mohammadzadeh F, Dolatian M, Jorjani M, Alavi Majd H. Diagnostic value of Amsel's clinical criteria for diagnosis of bacterial vaginosis. Global journal of health science. 2014 Oct 29:7(3):8-14. doi: 10.5539/gjhs.v7n3p8. Epub 2014 Oct 29     [PubMed PMID: 25948431]


[10]

Challa A, Sood S, Kachhawa G, Upadhyay AD, Dwivedi SN, Gupta S. Diagnostic concordance between Amsel's criteria and the Nugent scoring method in the assessment of bacterial vaginosis. Sexual health. 2022 Jan:18(6):512-514. doi: 10.1071/SH21149. Epub     [PubMed PMID: 34914580]


[11]

Amsel R, Totten PA, Spiegel CA, Chen KC, Eschenbach D, Holmes KK. Nonspecific vaginitis. Diagnostic criteria and microbial and epidemiologic associations. The American journal of medicine. 1983 Jan:74(1):14-22     [PubMed PMID: 6600371]


[12]

Mengistie Z, Woldeamanuel Y, Asrat D, Yigeremu M. Comparison of clinical and gram stain diagnosis methods of bacterial vaginosis among pregnant women in ethiopia. Journal of clinical and diagnostic research : JCDR. 2013 Dec:7(12):2701-3. doi: 10.7860/JCDR/2013/5872.3736. Epub 2013 Dec 15     [PubMed PMID: 24551617]


[13]

Sha BE, Chen HY, Wang QJ, Zariffard MR, Cohen MH, Spear GT. Utility of Amsel criteria, Nugent score, and quantitative PCR for Gardnerella vaginalis, Mycoplasma hominis, and Lactobacillus spp. for diagnosis of bacterial vaginosis in human immunodeficiency virus-infected women. Journal of clinical microbiology. 2005 Sep:43(9):4607-12     [PubMed PMID: 16145114]


[14]

Gazi H, Degerli K, Kurt O, Teker A, Uyar Y, Caglar H, Kurutepe S, Surucuoglu S. Use of DNA hybridization test for diagnosing bacterial vaginosis in women with symptoms suggestive of infection. APMIS : acta pathologica, microbiologica, et immunologica Scandinavica. 2006 Nov:114(11):784-7     [PubMed PMID: 17078859]


[15]

van der Veer C, van Houdt R, van Dam A, de Vries H, Bruisten S. Accuracy of a commercial multiplex PCR for the diagnosis of bacterial vaginosis. Journal of medical microbiology. 2018 Sep:67(9):1265-1270. doi: 10.1099/jmm.0.000792. Epub 2018 Jul 9     [PubMed PMID: 29985123]


[16]

van den Munckhof EHA, van Sitter RL, Boers KE, Lamont RF, Te Witt R, le Cessie S, Knetsch CW, van Doorn LJ, Quint WGV, Molijn A, Leverstein-van Hall MA. Comparison of Amsel criteria, Nugent score, culture and two CE-IVD marked quantitative real-time PCRs with microbiota analysis for the diagnosis of bacterial vaginosis. European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology. 2019 May:38(5):959-966. doi: 10.1007/s10096-019-03538-7. Epub 2019 Mar 22     [PubMed PMID: 30903536]


[17]

Sobel JD, Kaur N, Woznicki NA, Boikov D, Aguin T, Gill G, Akins RA. Prognostic Indicators of Recurrence of Bacterial Vaginosis. Journal of clinical microbiology. 2019 May:57(5):. doi: 10.1128/JCM.00227-19. Epub 2019 Apr 26     [PubMed PMID: 30842235]