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 Tools annual

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 monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Sensitive and specific assays for human papillomavirus (HPV) are essential for patient management. In this study, we directly compared the efficacy of the Hybrid Capture 2 (HC2; Qiagen, Valencia, CA) and Cervista assays (Hologic, Madison, WI). Consecutive cervical cytology specimens (n = 601) were tested using HC2, Cervista HR, and Cervista HPV 16/18 with analysis of only cytology-negative cases (n = 533). Results indicated no significant difference (P = .458) in prevalence rates between HC2 (7.5%) and Cervista HR (8.5%). The Cervista 16/18 prevalence was 1.6%. The negative percentage of agreement was 95.1% (468/492) vs a 70% (28/40) positive percentage of agreement. No false-negative results were detected by the Cervista internal DNA control. Our data show 29 discordant positive results (12 HC2 and 17 Cervista HR), suggesting some women with negative cytology may be triaged for unnecessary follow-up with either assay. For clinical screening, Cervista HR and HC2 are comparable and, by extension, should provide excellent negative predictive value for histologically relevant disease.

Cervista HR and HPV 16/18 Assays vs Hybrid Capture 2 Assay