ArticleSexually transmitted diseases2020
Quantitative Oral HPV16 and HPV18 Detection in Persons Attending Dental Clinics.
Article in Sexually transmitted diseases, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
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 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThis study aimed to assess quantitative human papillomavirus (HPV) type 16 and HPV18 detection in oral rinses obtained in dental offices in Seattle, Washington.
methodsWe evaluated oral rinses collected during dental visits from 2016 to 2018. Multiplex TaqMan quantitative polymerase chain reaction was used to determine HPV16 and HPV18 viral load (VL).
resultsOf 15,313 persons, 152 (1%) had detectable oral HPV16/18. Men were at higher risk of oral HPV16/18 infection than women (1.6% vs. 0.6%; odds ratio, 3.2; 95% confidence interval, 2.1-4.4). Compared with women, men with HPV16 were older (median, 55 vs. 48 years; P < 0.001) and had higher VL (39.7 vs. 1.1 copies/mL, P < 0.001). Of 39 with HPV16 at baseline and a second oral rinse, 13 remained positive at subsequent rinse; of 8 with HPV18 at baseline, 2 remained positive at subsequent rinse. Persons with consecutive positive test results were all men and had higher baseline VL compared with those with first positive and second negative samples.
conclusionOral rinse is an acceptable method of HPV testing, and persons are interested in testing. Overall HPV16/18 prevalence was low, and detection was more frequent among men than women, especially at higher copy numbers. HPV16 persistence was more common in men with high VL at baseline test. Future studies are needed to evaluate the feasibility of an effective secondary prevention strategy for oropharyngeal cancer using quantitative oral HPV detection.
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.