ArticleJournal of medical virology2026
Comparative Evaluation of HPV PLUS ELITe MGB® and Allplex™ HPV HR Assays for High-Risk Human Papillomavirus Genotyping in Cervical Samples.
Article in Journal of medical virology, 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To compare the performance of the HPV PLUS ELITe MGB® (ELITechGroup) and Allplex™ HPV HR (Seegene) assays for the detection and genotyping of high-risk HPV (HR-HPV) in cervical samples. HPV typing results using both techniques were obtained for 491/500 cervical samples. The ELITe assay provides individual detection of HPV16, 18, 31 and 45, and pooled detection of other HR-HPV into HR1 (33/52/58) and HR2 (35/39/51/56/59/66/68), whereas the Allplex™ assay provides individual detection of all HR-HPV types. Cytological data were available for 283 samples. Concordance, percent agreements, and kappa coefficient were calculated. Ct values, discordances, and associations with cytology were analyzed. Overall agreement was 88.6% (κ = 0.77, substantial). HPV DNA was detected in 40.5% (199/491) of samples with the ELITe assay and 47.9% (235/491) with the Allplex™ assay. The Allplex™ assay showed significantly higher detection than the ELITe assay for HPV16 (50 vs. 36), HPV18 (37 vs. 26), and HR1 genotypes (66 vs. 48, particularly HPV52). Most ELITe - /Allplex+ cases occurred in NILM and ASCUS samples (58% showing Ct ≤ 35), but with no significant difference regardless of cytology. The Allplex™ assay demonstrated higher analytical sensitivity for clinically relevant genotypes. This increased detection could reflect earlier identification before lesion onset or, conversely, detection of transient infections of uncertain clinical relevance, underscoring the need to balance analytical performance with clinical utility.
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.