Trial reportJournal of clinical pathology1995
Comparative analysis of human papillomavirus detection by PCR and non-isotopic in situ hybridisation.
Trial report in Journal of clinical pathology, 1995. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Use of multiple PCR primer sets for optimal detection of human papillomavirus.Journal of clinical microbiology · 1996Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
AIMS--To assess the relative diagnostic performance of the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and non-isotopic in situ hybridisation (NISH) and to correlate these data with cytopathological assessment. METHODS--Paired analysis of human papillomavirus (HPV) detection was performed by PCR and NISH on exfoliated cervical cells from 122 women attending a routine gynaecological examination. PCR amplification followed by generic and HPV type specific hybridisation was compared with NISH on a parallel cervical smear. RESULTS--Overall, 32 cases were positive by NISH and 61 positive by PCR. Of the 105 cases in which both PCR and NISH were interpretable, 76 (26%) were normal smears, 20 of which were HPV positive by NISH and 37 (49%) by PCR. Of 17 borderline smears, two were NISH positive and 12 PCR positive. Eight of nine smears containing koilocytes were positive by NISH and seven by PCR. Of three dyskaryotic smears, none were NISH and two were PCR positive. The concordance of NISH and PCR in these samples was 57%. To assess sampling error, NISH and PCR were performed on an additional 50 cases using aliquots from the same sample. This increased the concordance between assays to 74%. Filter hybridisation of PCR products with the cocktail of probes used in NISH (under low and high stringency conditions) demonstrated that several cases of NISH positivity could be accounted for by cross-hybridisation to HPV types identified by PCR but not present in the NISH probe cocktail. CONCLUSIONS--Sampling error and potential cross-hybridisation of probe and target should be considered in interpretation of these techniques. PCR is more sensitive because it provides for the amplification of target DNA sequences. In addition, the PCR assay utilised in this study detects a wider range of HPV types than are contained in the cocktails used for NISH. However, PCR assays detect viral DNA present both within cells and in cervical fluid whereas NISH permits morphological localisation.
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.