ArticleBMC infectious diseases2025
Comparative analysis of SD biosensor standard
Article in BMC infectious diseases, 2025. 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
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCervical cancer, primarily caused by persistent high-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) infections, is a significant health burden, particularly in low-resource settings such as Sarawak, Malaysia. Effective prevention depends on effective vaccination and early hrHPV detection. This study compares the performance of the point-of-care test (POCT) SD Biosensor Standard™ M10 HPV and laboratory-based Seegene Anyplex™ II HPV HR assay, focusing on their ability to detect and genotype hrHPV in self-collected high vaginal swab samples.
methodsA total of 151 archived self-sampled high vaginal swabs from the Sarawak Urban and Rural Action for Cervical Cancer Elimination Programme (Program SUARA) were analyzed. hrHPV detection and genotyping were performed using Anyplex, which identifies 14 hrHPV genotypes, and M10, which detects HPV16, HPV18, and other hrHPV categorized into six genogroups. Agreement between the assays was evaluated using Cohen's Kappa (κ), McNemar's test, and overall agreement percentages. Statistical significance was determined with p-values, and discordant results were further analyzed for potential diagnostic implications.
resultsThe overall agreement between M10 and Anyplex for hrHPV detection was 92.05% (κ = 0.84, 95% CI 0.75-0.93), indicating almost perfect agreement. M10 demonstrated comparable sensitivity for detecting HPV16, HPV18, and other hrHPV genotypes, achieving 96.91% agreement (κ = 0.89, 95%CI 0.73-1.00) in hrHPV classification when discordant results were excluded. Genogrouping also showed almost perfect agreement (κ = 0.91, 95% CI 0.82-0.98). McNemar's test indicated no significant difference in hrHPV detection rates (p > 0.05), affirming their comparable performance in detecting clinically significant hrHPV infections.
conclusionThe SD Biosensor Standard™ M10 HPV POCT and the Seegene Anyplex™ II HPV HR assay demonstrated almost perfect agreement in hrHPV detection and classification, supporting their complementary roles in cervical cancer prevention. M10's rapid, field-deployable design makes it suitable for resource-limited settings, while Anyplex provides enhanced genotyping capability in laboratory environments, allowing informed vaccine strategy. Incorporating both assays into cervical cancer prevention programs can improve screening coverage and accessibility, particularly in underserved areas. These findings align with the World Health Organization's cervical cancer elimination goals, reinforcing the importance of adaptable diagnostic tools in diverse healthcare contexts.
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.