ArticlePloS one2019
Pitfalls of commercially available HPV tests in HPV68a detection.
Article in PloS one, 2019. 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, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparative performance of cobas 4800 HPV Test and Anyplex II HPV HR for high-risk human papillomavirus detection.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2025Article
- Human Papillomavirus E7 and p16Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Novel concepts in cervical cancer screening: a comparison of VIA, HPV DNA test and p16Infectious agents and cancer · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHuman papillomavirus 68 (HPV68) is a probable carcinogenic HPV genotype which is included in almost all HPV screening assays and exists as two genetically variable subtypes (HPV68a and HPV68b). Routine HPV sample testing has shown that the cobas 4800 HPV Test (Roche) provides higher false-negative rates for HPV68 status than PapilloCheck HPV-Screening (Greiner Bio-One). The aim of our study was to evaluate the efficacy of cobas 4800 in HPV68 detection.
methodsA total of 2,145 cervical/cervicovaginal samples from women aged 17-88 were tested for HPV68 status using the cobas 4800 and PapilloCheck HPV tests. Viral load was assessed by quantitative PCR in all of the HPV68-positive cases. HPV68a/b subtyping was performed with real-time PCR followed by high resolution melting curve analysis, and was subsequently confirmed by Sanger sequencing.
resultsCobas 4800 detected HPV positivity in only 13/33 HPV68 single-genotype infection cases. Viral load was comparable across both tested subgroups. HRM analysis and Sanger sequencing identified the HPV68a subtype in all of the 20 instances of cobas 4800 false negatives. HPV68a and HPV68b were detected in 3/13 and 10/13 cases identified as other HPV-positive by cobas 4800.
conclusionThe HPV68a subtype was missed by cobas 4800 in more than 85% of all HPV68a-positive cases. Therefore, commercially available assays may underestimate HPV68 prevalence.
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.