Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25210073›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology2014

Clinical evaluation of a GP5+/6+-based luminex assay having full high-risk human papillomavirus genotyping capability and an internal control.

D T Geraets, K Cuschieri, M N C de Koning, L J van Doorn, P J F Snijders, C J L M Meijer, W G V Quint, M Arbyn

Erratum issuedOpen access · bronzeAbstract readComparative StudyEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical microbiology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
2.6field-weighted citation impact, top 11% 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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 43 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Clinical Evaluation of INNO-LiPA HPV GenotypingInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2018
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.

D T GeraetsDDL Diagnostic Laboratory, Rijswijk, the Netherlands daan.geraets@ddl.nl.
K CuschieriScottish HPV Reference Laboratory, Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.
M N C de KoningDDL Diagnostic Laboratory, Rijswijk, the Netherlands.
L J van DoornDDL Diagnostic Laboratory, Rijswijk, the Netherlands.
P J F SnijdersDepartment of Pathology, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
C J L M MeijerDepartment of Pathology, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
W G V QuintDDL Diagnostic Laboratory, Rijswijk, the Netherlands.
M ArbynUnit of Cancer Epidemiology, Scientific Institute of Public Health, Brussels, Belgium.
DDL Diagnostic Laboratory · NLAmsterdam UMC Location VUmc · NLEdinburgh Royal Infirmary · GBInstitut Scientifique de Santé Publique · BE

Funding

Chief Scientist Office CZB/4/658
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The LMNX genotyping kit HPV GP (LMNX) is based on the clinically validated GP5+/6+ PCR, with a genotyping readout as an alternative for the more established enzyme immunoassay (EIA) detection of 14 targeted high-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) types. LMNX is additionally provided with an internal control probe. Here, we present an analysis of the clinical performance of the LMNX using a sample panel and infrastructure provided by the international VALGENT (Validation of Genotyping Tests) project. This panel consisted of cervical specimens from approximately 1,000 women attending routine screening, "enriched" with 300 women with abnormal cytology. Cases were defined as women classified with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) grade 2+ (CIN2+) (n = 102) or CIN3+ (n = 55) within the previous 18 months. Controls were women who had normal cytology results over two subsequent screening rounds at a 3-year interval (n = 746). The GP5+/6+-PCR EIA (EIA) was used as a comparator assay and showed sensitivities of 94.1% and 98.2% for CIN2+ and CIN3+, respectively, with a clinical specificity of 92.4% among women aged ≥ 30 years. The LMNX demonstrated clinical sensitivities of 96.1% for CIN2+ and of 98.2% for CIN3+ and a clinical specificity of 92.6% for women aged ≥ 30 years. The LMNX and EIA were in high agreement (Cohen's kappa = 0.969) for the detection of 14 hrHPVs in aggregate, and no significant difference was observed (McNemar's P = 0.629). The LMNX internal control detected 0.6% inadequate specimens. Based on our study results, we consider the LMNX, similarly to the EIA, useful for HPV-based cervical cancer screening.

Indexed as

AdultCervix UteriEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHumansMiddle AgedMolecular Diagnostic TechniquesOligonucleotide ProbesPapillomaviridaePapillomavirus InfectionsReference StandardsSensitivity and SpecificityUterine Cervical DysplasiaYoung AdultOligonucleotide Probes

Identifiers

PMID25210073
PMCPMC4313237
OpenAlexW2162404720

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.