ArticleClinical Medicine Insights. Oncology2013
Comparing the Performance of Hybrid Capture II and Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) for the Identification of Cervical Dysplasia in the Screening and Diagnostic Settings.
Article in Clinical Medicine Insights. Oncology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Human Papillomavirus: Update in Bridging Basic Science to Clinical and Public Health Innovations.Health science reports · 2026Article
- HPV Prevalence and Genotype Distribution Among Infertile and Fertile Women of Turkish Nationality and Association with Cytology and Vaccination Status.Biomedicines · 2025Article
- From Satirical Poems and Invisible Poisons to Radical Surgery and Organized Cervical Cancer Screening-A Historical Outline of Cervical Carcinoma and Its Relation to HPV Infection.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Frequency of Human papillomavirus in women attending cervical cancer screening program in Chile.BMC cancer · 2017Article
- Efficacy of a real time optoelectronic device (TruScreen™) in detecting cervical intraepithelial pathologies: a prospective observational study.Journal of the Turkish German Gynecological Association · 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
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveBoth PCR and Hybrid Capture II (HCII) have been used for identifying cervical dysplasia; however, comparisons on the performance between these two tests show inconsistent results. We evaluated the performance of HCII and PCR MY09/11 in both screening and diagnostic populations in sub-sample of 1,675 non-pregnant women from a cohort in three clinical centers in the United States and Canada.
methodsSensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and concordance between the two tests were calculated.
resultsSpecificity of HCII in detecting low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (LSIL) was higher in the screening group (88.7%; 95% CI: 86.2%-90.8%) compared to the diagnostic group (46.3%; 95% CI: 42.1%-50.6%); however, specificity of PCR was low in both the screening (32.8%; 95% CI: 29.6%-36.2%) and diagnostic (14.4%; 95% CI: 11.6%-17.6%) groups. There was comparable sensitivity by both tests in both groups to detect high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (HSIL); however, HCII was more specific (89.1%; 95% CI: 86.8%-91.0%; 66.2%; 95% CI: 62.0%-70.1%) than PCR (33.3%; 95% CI: 30.2%-36.5%; 17.9%; 95% CI: 14.8%-21.6%) in the screening and diagnostic groups, respectively. Overall agreement for HPV positivity was approximately 50% between HCII and PCR MY09/11; with more positive results coming from the PCR MY09/11.
conclusionIn the current study, PCR MY09/11 was more sensitive but less specific than HCII in detecting LSIL, and HCII was more sensitive and specific in detecting HSIL than PCR in both screening and diagnostic groups.
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.