ArticleVirology journal2025
Genotypic analysis of human papillomavirus in cervical exfoliated cells from women in Zigong.
Article in Virology journal, 2025. 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.
- Comparison of boiling versus magnetic bead techniques in nucleic acid extraction for human papillomavirus detection: evidence based 17,179 cases.Virology journal · 2025Article
- Prevalence and genotype distribution of HPV infection among women in Chengdu from 2019 to 2024: a retrospective single-center study.Infectious agents and cancer · 2025Article
- Association Between Human Papillomavirus and Thymic Cancer: A Population-Based Cohort Study.Cancer management and research · 2025Article
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
Abstract
backgroundThis study investigated the human papillomavirus (HPV) infection status among women in Zigong from January 2016 to August 2024 and provides a comprehensive statistical analysis of HPV infection characteristics. The findings aim to enhance cervical cancer screening, inform vaccination strategies, and improve HPV infection prevention measures.
methodsWe conducted a retrospective analysis on 48,474 female patients who visited the gynecology department of Zigong Fourth People's Hospital from January 2016 to August 2024. Cervical exfoliated cell samples were collected from the patients, and the genotypes of 10 low-risk HPV (LR-HPV) and 17 high-risk HPV (HR-HPV) were detected by flow fluorescent hybridization technique. The study explored HPV infection rates, genotype distribution, number of infections, type of infections, and age distribution. The chi-squared (χ
resultsAmong the 48,474 patients, 9749 tested positive for HPV, with an overall infection rate of 20.11%. The HPV infection rate increased gradually from 2016 to 2024 (P < 0.001). The infection rates of single, double, triple, and ≥ quadruple infections were 15.11%, 3.54%, 1.00%, and 0.46%, respectively. The infection rates were 4.41% for LR-HPV-only, 13.13% for HR-HPV-only, and 2.57% for mixed LR and HR-HPV. HR-HPV primarily consisted of HPV types 52, 16, 53, and 58, with infection rates of 3.94%, 2.71%, 2.43%, and 2.42%, respectively. LR-HPV primarily consisted of types 61 and 81, with infection rates of 1.64% and 1.49%, respectively. A significant age correlation in HPV infection was observed (P < 0.001), with two distinct peaks in infection rates.
conclusionsThe HPV infection rate among women visiting the gynecology department in Zigong is high, predominantly involving HPV types 52, 16, 53, and 58. Therefore, strengthening HPV screening efforts and focusing on standardized genotype screening is crucial. Additionally, selecting HPV vaccines targeting prevalent genotypes and actively conducting HPV prevention and control work can reduce the incidence of HPV-related cervical cancer and other HPV-related diseases.
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.