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

Our objective was to directly compare the accuracy of the high-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) assays, Hybrid Capture 2 (hc2; Qiagen, Gaithersburg, MD) and Cervista (Hologic, Bedford, MA), in diagnosing cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) 3 or worse (cancer). A population-based, cross-sectional study (The Shenzhen Cervical Cancer Screening Trial II) was conducted in Guangdong Province in China. Three high-risk HPV assays, self and direct cervical sampling and cytology, were studied. Abnormal results on any of 6 study tests (33%) resulted in referral to colposcopy. At colposcopy, every patient had at least 5 cervical biopsy specimens obtained. For 8,556 women between the ages of 25 and 59 years (mean, 38.9 years), the rate for CIN 3 or worse was 1.6% (141/8,556). The sensitivity (confidence interval) values for CIN 3 or worse were 97.9% (94.0%-99.6%) and 95.1% (90.0%-98.0%) for hc2 and Cervista, respectively (P &gt; .05). The specificity (confidence interval) values were 87.8% (87.1%-88.5%) and 90.3% (89.6%-90.9%), respectively (P &lt; .05). Differences in accuracy in diagnosing CIN 3 or worse with the hc2 and Cervista tests are minor and result from the decisions made in selecting the cut points.

A Population-Based Clinical Trial Comparing Endocervical High-Risk HPV Testing Using Hybrid Capture 2 and Cervista From the SHENCCAST II Study