ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology2012
Comparison of the GenoFlow human papillomavirus (HPV) test and the Linear Array assay for HPV screening in an Asian population.
Article in Journal of clinical microbiology, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Human papillomavirus testing versus repeat cytology for triage of minor cytological cervical lesions.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2013Pooled it
- Prevalence and type distribution of human papillomavirus (HPV) in Malaysian women with and without cervical cancer: an updated estimate.Bioscience reports · 2018Trial
- Article
- Machine Learning Interpretation of Extended Human Papillomavirus Genotyping by Onclarity in an Asian Cervical Cancer Screening Population.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2019Article
- Article
- Human papillomavirus genotyping by Linear Array and Next-Generation Sequencing in cervical samples from Western Mexico.Virology journal · 2015Article
- Comparison of Hybribio GenoArray and Roche human papillomavirus (HPV) linear array for HPV genotyping in anal swab samples.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
High-risk human papillomavirus (HR-HPV) DNA detection in cervical cytology samples is useful for primary screening of cervical cancer and for triage of patients with equivocal cytological findings. The GenoFlow HPV array test (GF assay; Diagcor Bioscience Inc., Hong Kong) was recently developed to detect 33 HPV genotypes by a "flowthrough" hybridization technology. In this study, we assessed the analytical sensitivity and reproducibility of the GF assay and compared its genotyping results with those of the Linear Array (LA) assay (Roche Molecular Diagnostics, Indianapolis, IN), using 400 archived liquid-based cytology samples representing the full range of cytology findings. Genotyping findings of the GF and LA assays were concordant or compatible for 93.44% of tested samples, with a good (κ = 0.797) to very good (κ = 0.812) strength of agreement for assay-common and oncogenic HPV types, respectively. The two assays showed good (κ = 0.635) agreement in detecting infections with multiple HPV genotypes. The lowest detection limits of the GF assay for HPV16 and HPV18 were 25 copies and 20 copies, respectively. Repeat testing of 60 samples by use of two different lots of the GF assay revealed no discordant results, suggesting good reproducibility of the assay. Both assays achieved approximately 80% and 100% sensitivity for identifying cases of atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance (ASC-US) and low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (LSIL) with subsequent detection of LSIL+ and high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions or higher (HSIL+) in 2 years, respectively. Among ASC-US samples, the GF assay achieved the highest specificity (23.08%) for indicating subsequent identification of HSIL compared with the LA (19.23%) and Hybrid Capture 2 (HC2) (8.97%) assays. The GF and LA assays showed significant discrepancy in detecting HPV genotypes 11, 26, 39, 52, and 66. More sensitive detection of HPV52 by GF assay offers an advantage in regions where HPV52 is more prevalent. The sensitivity of the GF assay for detecting patients with HSIL+ was noninferior to that of the LA assay.
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.