Evidence map›Paper›PMID 16954236›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology2006

Evaluation of the SPF10-INNO LiPA human papillomavirus (HPV) genotyping test and the roche linear array HPV genotyping test.

Dennis van Hamont, Maaike A P C van Ham, Judith M J E Bakkers, Leon F A G Massuger, Willem J G Melchers

Open access · greenAbstract readComparative StudyEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical microbiology, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 64 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
64citing papers in PubMed
9.5field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

64 citing papers in PubMed, 171 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Observational
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Oral HPV prevalence assessment by Linear Array vs. SPFPapillomavirus research (Amsterdam, Netherlands) · 2020
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Observational
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

4 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Dennis van HamontDepartment of Medical Microbiology, Nijmegen Centre for Molecular Life Sciences, Nijmegen University Centre for Infectious Diseases, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, P.O. Box 9101, 6500 HB Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Maaike A P C van Ham
Judith M J E Bakkers
Leon F A G Massuger
Willem J G Melchers
Radboud University Nijmegen · NLRadboud University Medical Center · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The need for accurate genotyping of human papillomavirus (HPV) infections is becoming increasingly important, since (i) the oncogenic potential among the high-risk HPV genotypes varies in the pathogenesis of cervical cancer, (ii) monitoring multivalent HPV vaccines is essential to investigate the efficiency of the vaccines, and (iii) genotyping is crucial in epidemiologic studies evaluating HPV infections worldwide. Various genotyping assays have been developed to meet this demand. Comparison of different studies that use various HPV genotyping tests is possible only after a performance assessment of the different assays. In the present study, the SPF(10) LiPA version 1 and the recently launched Roche Linear Array HPV genotyping assays are compared. A total of 573 liquid-based cytology samples were tested for the presence of HPV by a DNA enzyme immunoassay; 210 were found to be positive for HPV DNA and were evaluated using both genotyping assays (163 with normal cytology, 22 with atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance, 20 with mild/moderate dysplasia, and 5 with severe dysplasia). Comparison analysis was limited to the HPV genotype probes common to both assays. Of the 160 samples used for comparison analysis, 129 (80.6%) showed absolute agreement between the assays (concordant), 18 (11.2%) showed correspondence for some but not all genotypes detected on both strips (compatible), and the remaining 13 (8.2%) samples did not show any similarity between the tests (discordant). The overall intertest comparison agreement for all individually detectable genotypes was considered very good (kappa value, 0.79). The genotyping assays were therefore highly comparable and reproducible.

Indexed as

Reagent Kits, DiagnosticCervix UteriDNA PrimersDNA, ViralFemaleGenotypeHumansNucleic Acid HybridizationPapillomaviridaePapillomavirus InfectionsPolymerase Chain ReactionReproducibility of ResultsVaginal SmearsDNA PrimersDNA, ViralReagent Kits, Diagnostic

Identifiers

PMID16954236
PMCPMC1594724
OpenAlexW2110558035

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.