Evidence Hub

Clinical epidemiology and management challenges of genital Mycoplasma and Ureaplasma infections: a retrospective observational study at a Japanese urban clinic

Mori N, Yukawa K, Oda M, Tanaka M, Tokimatsu I, Sato A

Sexual health, 2026

524 participants

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Genital Mycoplasmas and Ureaplasmas pose diagnostic and therapeutic challenges due to their varying pathogenicity and increasing antimicrobial resistance. This study aimed to characterise the positivity, clinical associations, and treatment outcomes of Mycoplasmoides genitalium, Metamycoplasma hominis, Ureaplasma urealyticum and Ureaplasma parvum in an urban clinic in Tokyo, Japan.

METHODS: This retrospective study was conducted at a single clinic in Tokyo, Japan. Electronic medical records of patients who underwent polymerase chain reaction testing for the four target pathogens between January 2023 and April 2024 were included in the study. To minimise confounding, a sub-analysis was performed on a chlamydia/gonorrhoea-negative subset. The statistical association between specific organisms and symptoms was assessed, and the treatment success rate (negative test-of-cure after ≥3 weeks) was evaluated.

RESULTS: Of 524 patients tested, 213 (40.7%) tested positive for at least one pathogen. M. genitalium was the most prevalent (81/213, 38.0%), and showed a robust association with dysuria (P < 0.01) and purulent genital discharge (P = 0.03) in the chlamydia/gonorrhoea-negative subset. In contrast, M. hominis and Ureaplasma spp. were predominantly associated with colonisation or non-specific symptoms. The clinical success rate for M. genitalium (minocycline followed by sitafloxacin) was suboptimal at 68.8%. Notably, U. parvum showed an alarmingly low success rate…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 524 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free