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

Human papillomavirus (HPV) infection is the major cause of cervical cancer and its precursor, cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN), and HPV testing has therefore been proposed for improved triaging and follow-up of women treated for CIN. We compared two common HPV DNA detection tests (Hybrid Capture II [HCII] and PCR-enzyme immunosorbent assay (EIA) using the primers GP5+/GP6+ followed by HPV typing with reverse dot blot hybridization) for sensitivity and specificity for detection of CIN and of CIN recurrence after treatment. Two hundred and thirty-nine women referred to the Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology in Västerås, Sweden, were enrolled because of atypical Pap smears; 177 of these were later treated for dysplasia by conization or loop diathermy. Samples for HPV DNA testing were taken before and 4 to 6 months after treatment. There was substantial agreement between the HCII and PCR-EIA (kappa, 0.70 before treatment and 0.72 after treatment). The sensitivity for histopathologically confirmed CIN III was 100.0% for PCR-EIA and 95.6% for HCII. For patients with CIN II or worse (CIN II+), the sensitivities were 92.9% (PCR-EIA) and 91.8% (HCII). The specificities for CIN II+ in the pretreatment setting were 30.4% for PCR-EIA and 24.1% for HCII. After treatment, the sensitivities for CIN III in cytology were 100.0% by both methods, and for CIN II+, sensitivities were 80.0% by both methods. The specificities for CIN II+ in the posttreatment setting were 83.5% for PCR and 85.4% for HCII. In conclusion, the sensitivities of both PCR-EIA and HCII are high and almost equal, suggesting that both methods are suitable as tools for detection and posttreatment follow-up of CIN II-III.

journal of clinical microbiology

Comparison between the Hybrid Capture II Test and a PCR-Based Human Papillomavirus Detection Method for Diagnosis and Posttreatment Follow-Up of Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia