Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20573862›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology2010

Clinical performance of the PreTect HPV-Proofer E6/E7 mRNA assay in comparison with that of the Hybrid Capture 2 test for identification of women at risk of cervical cancer.

Samuel Ratnam, Francois Coutlee, Dan Fontaine, James Bentley, Nicholas Escott, Prafull Ghatage, Veeresh Gadag, Glen Holloway, Elias Bartellas, Nick Kum and 2 more

Open access · greenAbstract 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 38 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
38citing papers in PubMed
6.3field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

38 citing papers in PubMed, 81 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Evolving HPV diagnostics: current practice and future frontiers.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2025
    Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

12 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.

Samuel RatnamPublic Health Laboratory, 100 Forest Road, St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada. sam.ratnam@easternhealth.ca
Francois Coutlee
Dan Fontaine
James Bentley
Nicholas Escott
Prafull Ghatage
Veeresh Gadag
Glen Holloway
Elias Bartellas
Nick Kum
Christopher Giede
Adrian Lear
Memorial University of Newfoundland · CAThunder Bay Regional Health Sciences Centre · CACentre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal · CADr. H. Bliss Murphy Cancer Centre · CAQueen Elizabeth II Health Sciences Centre · CARoyal University Hospital · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Human papillomavirus (HPV) DNA testing has a higher clinical sensitivity than cytology for the detection of high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia or worse (CIN 2+). However, an improvement in specificity would be desirable. As malignant transformation is induced by HPV E6/E7 oncogenes, detection of E6/E7 oncogene activity may improve specificity and be more predictive of cervical cancer risk. The PreTect HPV-Proofer assay (Proofer; Norchip) detects E6/E7 mRNA transcripts from HPV types 16, 18, 31, 33, and 45 with simultaneous genotype-specific identification. The clinical performance of this assay was assessed in a cross-sectional study of women referred for colposcopy in comparison with the Hybrid Capture 2 (HC2; Qiagen) test, which detects DNA of 13 high-risk oncogenic HPV types collectively. Cervical specimens were collected in PreservCyt, and cytology was performed using the ThinPrep method (Hologic). The samples were processed for HPV detection with Proofer and HC2 and genotyping with the Linear Array method (Roche Molecular Systems). Histology-confirmed CIN 2+ served as the disease endpoint to assess the clinical performance of the tests. A total of 1,551 women were studied, and of these, 402 (25.9%) were diagnosed with CIN 2+ on histology. The Proofer assay showed a sensitivity of 78.1% (95% confidence interval [CI], 74.1 to 82.1) versus 95.8% (95% CI, 93.8 to 97.8) for HC2 (P < 0.05) and a specificity of 75.5% (95% CI, 73.0 to 78.0) versus 39.6% (95% CI, 36.8 to 42.4), respectively (P < 0.05). The lower sensitivity and higher specificity of Proofer for detection of CIN 2+ can be attributed to the fact that this test detects the expression of E6/E7 genes beyond a threshold from a limited number of oncogenic HPV types. In conclusion, Proofer is more specific than HC2 in identifying women with CIN 2+ but has a lower sensitivity.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overCervix UteriCross-Sectional StudiesDNA, ViralFemaleHumansMiddle AgedOncogene Proteins, ViralPapillomaviridaePapillomavirus InfectionsRNA, MessengerRNA, ViralSensitivity and SpecificityDNA, ViralOncogene Proteins, ViralRNA, MessengerRNA, Viral

Identifiers

PMID20573862
PMCPMC2916571
OpenAlexW2109680788

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.