ArticleJournal of gynecologic oncology2026
Comparison of mRNA-based and next-generation sequencing HPV assays in a population-based cervical cancer screening program in China.
Article in Journal of gynecologic oncology, 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
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate and compare the diagnostic performance of the Food and Drug Administration-approved APTIMA
methodsA total of 3,166 women were enrolled from Wuxiang County, Shanxi Province, China, and followed for 3 years. APTIMA and MHSA were performed using cervical cytology specimens. Histopathology served as the reference standard. Diagnostic accuracy (sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values), assay concordance, and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analyses were conducted for baseline and longitudinal detection of CIN2+/CIN3+.
resultsAmong 2,683 women with complete follow-up, the prevalence of high-risk-HPV was 17.22% by APTIMA and 20.16% by MHSA. Substantial concordance was observed (κ=0.798). APTIMA showed higher specificity than MHSA when combined with cytology (CIN2+: 88.42% vs. 87.96%, p=0.038; CIN3+: 87.28% vs. 86.87%, p=0.063), while sensitivity and predictive values were comparable. The MHSA demonstrated broader HPV genotyping, while APTIMA yielded slightly superior performance in post-test probability for CIN3+ over 3 years. ROC analysis confirmed comparable diagnostic discrimination.
conclusionBoth assays offer high clinical accuracy within 3 years. While APTIMA remains the validated standard, the MHSA may serve as a promising next-generation sequencing-based alternative, particularly in expanded genotyping.
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.