ArticleBMJ public health2025
Distribution and extended triage of high-risk human papillomavirus genotyping based on vaginal self-sampling.
Article in BMJ public health, 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
18 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: To investigate the overall and type-specific prevalence of high-risk human papillomavirus (HR-HPV) infection in China across different age groups and regions and to evaluate the triage of HPV-positive cases. Methods: A prospective cross-sectional study recruited a total of 20 103 women aged 30-59 years from 13 provinces in China. Self-collected vaginal samples were tested for 14 HR-HPV types using next-generation sequencing or multiplex real-time PCR assays. Results: The five most common types were HPV52, 58, 16, 39 and 51. The prevalence of single-type HR-HPV was 10.70%. The overall proportion of HPV16/18 was 20.67%, with a significant difference observed among provinces (p<0.05). The age-specific prevalence curve of HR-HPV followed a U-shaped pattern from 30 to 59 years, with a lower prevalence observed in women aged 40-44 years (12.35%), which subsequently changed with age. The proportion of women aged 30-34 years with HPV16 (21.59%) was significantly higher than that in other age groups, showing two peaks in young and older women. There was a significantly higher prevalence of HPV16 single-type infection in the youngest group, whereas HPV16 multi-type infection was higher in older women. Among cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or higher (CIN)2+ cases, HPV16 infection accounted for 43.98%, HPV18 infection for 7.84%, and other 12 infections for 48.20%. HPV16 had the highest sensitivity for detecting CIN2+, reaching 42.7% among single HPV types, followed by HPV52 and HPV58. When HPV16/18/33 were combined for detection, the sensitivity for detecting CIN2+ increased to 66.67%. Conclusions: The prevalence and genotype distribution of HR-HPV based on vaginal self-sampling varied across different regions and ages in China. HPV16 was more prevalent in both younger and older age groups. Different HPV subtypes have different detection rates for CIN2+, and combining HPV16/18/33 significantly improved the sensitivity for detecting CIN2+.
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.