English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Few studies have compared the cobas HPV test to the Aptima HPV assay (AHPV) and the Aptima HPV 16 18/45 genotype assay (AHPV GT) for high-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) detection, clinical performance in detecting cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 (CIN2) or more severe (CIN2+) diagnoses, and risk stratification by partial HPV genotyping. The cobas HPV test is a DNA test that separately and concurrently detects HPV16, HPV18, and a pool of 12 other hrHPV types. AHPV is an RNA test for a pool of 14 hrHPV genotypes, and AHPV GT is an RNA test run on AHPV-positive results to detect HPV16 separately from HPV18 and HPV45, which are detected together. In a population of patients (n=988) referred for colposcopy because of a cervical Pap cytology result of atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance (ASC-US), a cervical scrape specimen was taken, placed into a ThinPrep Pap test vial containing PreservCyt liquid cytology medium, and tested in a blinded fashion with cobas and AHPV and with AHPV GT for AHPV-positive results. The final diagnoses were based on a consensus panel review of the biopsy specimen histology. AHPV and cobas were equally sensitive for CIN2+ diagnoses (89.4% each; P=1.000), and AHPV was more specific than cobas (63.1% versus 59.3%; P≤0.001). The percent total agreement, percent positive agreement, and kappa value were 90.9%, 81.1%, and 0.815, respectively. Risk stratification using partial HPV genotyping was similar for the two assays. AHPV and AHPV GT had similar sensitivity and risk stratification to cobas HPV, but they were more specific than cobas HPV.

journal of clinical microbiology

Comparison of Human Papillomavirus Detection by Aptima HPV and cobas HPV Tests in a Population of Women Referred for Colposcopy following Detection of Atypical Squamous Cells of Undetermined Significance by Pap Cytology