ArticleJournal of gynecologic oncology2012
Comparison of the Seeplex HPV4A ACE and the Cervista HPV assays for the detection of HPV in hybrid capture 2 positive media.
Article in Journal of gynecologic oncology, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of the PANArray HPV Genotyping Chip Test with the Cobas 4800 HPV and Hybrid Capture 2 Tests for Detection of HPV in ASCUS Women.Yonsei medical journal · 2018Article
- Type-specific persistence or regression of human papillomavirus genotypes in women with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 1: A prospective cohort study.Obstetrics & gynecology science · 2015Article
- Comparison of the Cobas 4800 HPV test and the Seeplex HPV4A ACE with the hybrid capture 2 test.International journal of medical sciences · 2013Article
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo validate the efficacy of Seeplex HPV4A ACE for the detection of high-risk (HR) human papillomavirus (HPV) and HPV 16 and/or HPV 18 genotypes as compared to the PCR method and the Cervista HPV assays in cervical swab samples.
methodsBesides liquid-based cytology, additional 97 cervical swab samples were collected for HPV genotyping by HPV4A ACE, Cervista HPV assays, and PCR method. To check the statistical differences, we also conducted the paired proportion test, Cohen's κ statistic, and a receiver operating characteristic curve.
resultsSeeplex HPV4A ACE and the Cervista HPV HR showed substantial agreement with PCR for detection of HR HPVs (88.3%, κ=0.767 and 81.7%, κ=0.636, respectively). Seeplex HPV4A ACE also showed substantial agreement with the Cervista HPV 16/18 test (89.5%, κ=0.628). Additionally, the sensitivity and specificity of Seeplex HPV4A ACE and Cervista HPV HR were 91.4% vs. 84.5% and 73.4%, vs. 72.7%, respectively, when those higher than low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions were regarded as abnormalities. HPV genotyping for HPV 16/18 detected cervical intraepithelial neoplasias (CINs) better than HR HPV tests (66.7% vs. 24.6% by HPV4A ACE, 52.6% vs. 25.9% by Cervista HPV assays in CIN II or more, relatively).
conclusionSeeplex HPV4A ACE is an effective method as the PCR and the Cervista HPV assays for the detection of HR HPVs and for genotyping of HPV 16 and 18.
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.