ArticlemedRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences2024
Comparison of the ScreenFire and Xpert HPV assays for the detection of human papillomavirus and cervical precancer among women living with HIV in Malawi.
Article in medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences, 2024. 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
- Updated by
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends human papillomavirus (HPV) testing for primary cervical cancer screening, including among women living with HIV (WLWH). Low-and-middle-income countries (LMICs) account for 85% of the cervical cancer burden globally, yet have limited access to HPV-based screening, largely due to cost. This study aims to compare the performance of a rapid, isothermal amplification HPV assay (ScreenFire) to that of the Xpert HPV assay for the detection of HPV and cervical precancer among WLWH in Malawi. Methods: We utilized stored self- and provider-collected specimens from a prospective cohort study of WLWH in Malawi from July 2020 to February 2022. Specimens were tested with both Xpert and ScreenFire HPV assays. The overall and within-channel non-hierarchical agreement between ScreenFire and Xpert was determined for both self- and provider-collected specimens. Hierarchical ScreenFire HPV positivity by channel was compared to Xpert for each histological diagnosis - cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse (CIN2+) compared to <CIN2. Results: 315 matched self- and provider-collected specimens had valid results from both Xpert and ScreenFire testing and were included in analyses. Of these, 245 (78%) had normal pathology, 21 CIN1 (7%), 14 CIN2 (4%), and 35 CIN3 (11%). Among provider-collected specimens, the assays had 80% agreement on overall HPV positivity (unweighted kappa 0.59, 95% 0.50-0.69). ScreenFire was HPV-positive in 90% of self-collected specimens that were HPV-positive on Xpert. Channel agreement between the assays was high for both self- and provider-collected specimens, but slightly lower for HPV18/45. In hierarchical analysis, ScreenFire demonstrated high concordance with Xpert testing for detecting CIN2+ cases in all channels, missing no HPV 16 or HPV 18/45 positive CIN2+ case that was positive on Xpert, in both self- and provider-collected specimens. Conclusion: In this study of stored specimens, the ScreenFire HPV assay performed well in the detection of HPV and CIN2+ among WLWH compared to the Xpert HPV assay. If supported by larger validation studies, ScreenFire could be an affordable alternative point-of-care HPV assay for use in LMICs.
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.