ArticleAnnals of laboratory medicine2014
Clinical validation of AdvanSure GenoBlot assay as primary screening and test of cure for human papillomavirus infection.
Article in Annals of laboratory medicine, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundClinical specificity and sensitivity are essential factors in the adoption of a human papillomavirus (HPV) test as a primary screening tool and test of cure after treatment of cervical cancer and precancerous lesions (High-Risk-Lesion). Using histologically-confirmed High-Risk-Lesion-patient specimens with postoperative follow-ups, we performed clinical validation of the AdvanSure GenoBlot Assay (GenoBlot; LG Life Sciences, Korea).
methodsThe study population included 100 cases with High-Risk-Lesion, 96 with high-risk genotype positive and cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) 1 or better, and 39 with HR-negative and better than CIN 1. Forty-eight High-Risk-Lesion cases received follow-up HPV exams after surgery. For validation as a test of cure, 48 preoperative specimens (PreOP) and 78 postoperative specimens (PostOP) from 48 subjects were separately analyzed. The results of HPV DNA chip tests (HPVDNAChip; BioMedLab Co., Korea) and sequencing were cross-compared.
resultsThe concordance rates for each genotype between HPVDNAChip and GenoBlot were between 96.3-100%. The accuracy of HPVDNAChip and GenoBlot was 87.9% and 96.6%, respectively. Genotype-based specificity for High-Risk-Lesion detection was higher than 87% for both assays; genotype 16 showed the highest sensitivity. In the PostOP group, the positive rates for HPVDNAChip and GenoBlot were 30.8% and 47.4%, respectively.
conclusionsGenoBlot showed a higher positive rate than HPVDNAChip for each genotype, with concordance rate and accuracy being similar to previous reports. As a test of cure, GenoBlot performed better than the HPVDNAChip.
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.