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

A comparison of two PCR-based human papillomavirus (HPV) DNA detection and genotyping systems (PGMY LBA and SPF(10) LiPA) was conducted in two laboratories. Both systems are based on broad-spectrum PCR for the detection of HPV DNA, followed by reverse hybridization with type-specific probes. A total of 400 selected cervical scrape specimens in PreservCyt solution (55% normal cytology, 18% atypical squamous cells of unknown significance, 14.8% low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions [SIL], and 12.5% high-grade SIL) were tested for the presence of HPV DNA. In this selected group of specimens, the overall agreement between the two methods for the detection of any HPV DNA was high (kappa = 0.859). When the 20 common HPV genotypes identified by both methods were considered (HPV types 6, 11, 16, 18, 31, 33, 35, 39, 40, 42, 45, 51, 52, 53, 54, 56, 58, 59, 66, and 68), compatible genotype-specific results were observed in 96.5% of the samples, even when multiple HPV genotypes were present. However, for some specific HPV genotypes, there were significant differences in HPV detection by the two methods. PGMY LBA detected more HPV type 42 (P = 0.002), HPV type 56 (P = 0.039), and HPV type 59 (P &lt; 0.001), whereas SPF(10) LiPA detected more HPV type 31 (P &lt; 0.001) and HPV type 52 (P = 0.031). For the remaining genotypes, including HPV types 16 and 18, the results obtained by the two methods were not significantly different. In general, both genotyping methods are highly suitable for clinical and epidemiological studies.

Genotyping of Human Papillomavirus in Liquid Cytology Cervical Specimens by the PGMY Line Blot Assay and the SPF 10 Line Probe Assay

Genotyping of Human Papillomavirus in Liquid Cytology Cervical Specimens by the PGMY Line Blot Assay and the SPF ₁₀ Line Probe Assay