Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20042622›Full record

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.

A T Hesselink, D A M Heideman, J Berkhof, F Topal, R P Pol, C J L M Meijer, P J F Snijders

Abstract readComparative StudyEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

14 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Evolving HPV diagnostics: current practice and future frontiers.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2025
    Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
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

7 authors.

A T HesselinkDepartment of Pathology, VU University Medical Center, de Boelelaan 1117, Amsterdam 1081 HV, Netherlands.
D A M Heideman
J Berkhof
F Topal
R P Pol
C J L M Meijer
P J F Snijders

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Reagent Kits, DiagnosticAdultClinical Laboratory TechniquesFemaleHumansImmunoenzyme TechniquesMass ScreeningMiddle AgedMolecular Diagnostic TechniquesPapillomaviridaePapillomavirus InfectionsPolymerase Chain ReactionSensitivity and SpecificityReagent Kits, Diagnostic

Identifiers

PMID20042622
PMCPMC2832420

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.