ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology2010
Comparison of the clinical performance of PapilloCheck human papillomavirus detection with that of the GP5+/6+-PCR-enzyme immunoassay in population-based cervical screening.
Article in Journal of clinical microbiology, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
14 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evolving HPV diagnostics: current practice and future frontiers.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2025Review
- Article
- Methodologies of Primary HPV Testing Currently Applied for Cervical Cancer Screening.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Review
- Rapid detection of high-risk HPV16 and HPV18 based on microchip electrophoresis.Journal of pharmaceutical analysis · 2020Article
- Article
- Predictors of abnormal cytology among HPV-infected women in remote territories of French Guiana.BMC women's health · 2018Article
- The BD Onclarity HPV Assay on Samples Collected in SurePath Medium Meets the International Guidelines for Human Papillomavirus Test Requirements for Cervical Screening.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2016Article
- Comparison of Two Widely Used Human Papillomavirus Detection and Genotyping Methods, GP5+/6+-Based PCR Followed by Reverse Line Blot Hybridization and Multiplex Type-Specific E7-Based PCR.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2016Article
- The PapilloCheck Assay for Detection of High-Grade Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2015Article
- Comparison of analytical and clinical performance of CLART HPV2 genotyping assay to Linear Array and Hybrid Capture 2: a split-sample study.BMC cancer · 2015Article
- Clinical validation of the HPV-risk assay, a novel real-time PCR assay for detection of high-risk human papillomavirus DNA by targeting the E7 region.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2014Article
- The Aptima HPV assay fulfills the cross-sectional clinical and reproducibility criteria of international guidelines for human papillomavirus test requirements for cervical screening.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2013Article
- The cytology and DNA detection by the PapilloCheck(®) test in the diagnosis of human papillomavirus infection.European journal of microbiology & immunology · 2013Article
- Comparison of clinical and analytical performance of the Abbott Realtime High Risk HPV test to the performance of hybrid capture 2 in population-based cervical cancer screening.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2011Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We compared the clinical performance of the PapilloCheck human papillomavirus (HPV) assay with that of the GP5+/6+-PCR method with an enzyme immunoassay readout (GP5+/6+-PCR-EIA) for the detection of high-risk HPV (hrHPV) types by the use of cervical samples originating from women in a population-based by the use of cervical screening cohort tested by combined cytology and GP5+/6+-PCR-EIA (POBASCAM trial). Specimens from a random sample of 1,437 controls (women ages 40 to 60 years with normal cytological findings and without evidence of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or higher [> or = CIN2] within up to 8 years of follow-up) and 192 cases (women ages 30 to 60 years in whom > or = CIN3 was detected within up to 3 years of follow-up) were subjected to analysis by the PapilloCheck method. When all 17 (probably) hrHPV types were taken into account, the PapilloCheck assay had a clinical sensitivity for the detection of > or = CIN3 of 96.4% (185/192 samples; 95% confidence interval [CI], 93.7 to 99.7) and a clinical specificity for the detection of > or = CIN2 of 96.3% (95% CI, 95.3 to 97.3). After restriction of the analysis by the PapilloCheck assay to the 14 hr HPV types targeted by GP5+/6+-PCR-EIA, the clinical sensitivity and clinical specificity values were 95.8% (95% CI, 92.8 to 98.8) and 96.7% (95% CI, 95.7 to 97.7), respectively. By comparison, these values were 96.4% (95% CI, 93.9 to 98.9) and 97.7% (95% CI, 96.9 to 98.5), respectively, for the GP5+/6+-PCR-EIA. When all 17 (probably) hrHPV types were included in the analysis, noninferiority score testing revealed that the clinical sensitivity of the PapilloCheck assay for the detection of > or = CIN3 was noninferior to that of the GP5+/6+-PCR-EIA (P < 0.0001), but the clinical specificity of the PapilloCheck assay for the detection of > or = CIN2 was inferior to that of the GP5+/6+-PCR-EIA (P = 0.08) when lower bounds of 90% for sensitivity and 98% for specificity were used. When the analysis was restricted to the 14 hrHPV types targeted by the GP5+/6+-PCR-EIA, both the clinical sensitivity and the clinical specificity of the PapilloCheck assay were noninferior to those of the GP5+/6+-PCR-EIA (noninferiority score test; P < 0.0001 and P = 0.007, respectively). Thus, when the findings obtained for the 14 hrHPV types detectable by the GP5+/6+-PCR-EIA are considered, the PapilloCheck assay is clinically compatible with the GP5+/6+-PCR-EIA.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.