Cited by 211Cervical Cancer and HPV ResearchReproductive tract infections researchWomen's cancer prevention and management

Comparing the performance of six human papillomavirus tests in a screening population

Open access
Cuzick, J, Cadman, L, Mesher, D, Austin, J, Ashdown-Barr, L, Ho, L, Terry, G, Liddle, S +3 more·2013·British Journal of Cancer

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Several new assays have been developed for high-risk HPV testing of cervical samples; we compare six HPV tests in a screening population. METHODS: Residual material from liquid-based PreservCyt samples was assayed. Four tests (Hybrid Capture 2, Cobas, Abbott and Becton-Dickinson (BD)) measured HPV DNA while two used RNA (APTIMA and NorChip). RESULTS: Positivity rates ranged from 13.4 to 16.3% for the DNA-based tests with a significantly lower positivity rate for the Abbott assay. The Gen-Probe APTIMA assay was positive in 10.3% of women, which was significantly lower than all the DNA tests; the NorChip PreTect HPV-Proofer test was much lower at 5.2%. 40 CIN2+ cases were identified, of which 19 were CIN3+. All CIN3+ cases were HPV positive by all tests except for one, which was negative by the Abbott assay and five which were negative by the NorChip test. CONCLUSION: All HPV tests except NorChip showed high sensitivity for high-grade lesions positive by cytology, suggesting co-testing is unnecessary when using HPV tests. Positivity rates in cytology-negative specimens were similar for the DNA-based tests, but lower for the APTIMA test suggesting this maintains the high sensitivity of DNA tests, but with better specificity.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/bjc.2013.22

Cites

23 of 23 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. LeBar W Taylor S Hook EW 2009 Reproducibility of the BD Viper System with XTR Technology (Extracted Mode) with PreservCyt Liquid Based Cytology MediumPresented at 25th Clinical Virology Symposium: Daytona Beach, FL

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Cuzick, J., Cadman, L., Mesher, D., Austin, J., Ashdown-Barr, L., Ho, L., Terry, G., Liddle, S., Wright, C., Lyons, D., & Szarewski, A.
Affiliations
  • Queen Mary University of London (GB)
  • St Mary's Hospital (GB)
Corresponding author
Szarewski, A
Venue
British Journal of Cancer
Published
2013-01-31
Volume
108
Issue
4
Pages
908-913
ISSN
  • 0007-0920 (ISSN-L)
  • 1532-1827
OpenAlex
W2076776080
Cited by
211
References
23
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 19 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 17 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 16 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 19 · 2015: 33 · 2014: 18 · 2013: 11
FWCI
19.71
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • British Journal of Cancer (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Queen Mary Research Online (Queen Mary University of London) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
Funders
Cancer Research UK (C8162/A10406, C569/A10404)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Cervical Cancer and HPV Research
  • Life Sciences › Immunology and Microbiology › Microbiology › Reproductive tract infections research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Women's cancer prevention and management
Keywords
HPV testing, cervical cancer screening, HPV DNA test, Norchip, Hybrid Capture 2, cobas HPV test, PreservCyt, cervical intraepithelial neoplasia, sensitivity and specificity, co-testing, liquid-based cytology
MeSH terms
Uterine Cervical Neoplasms, Cervix Uteri, Cytodiagnosis, DNA, Viral, Female, Humans, Sensitivity and Specificity, Biomarkers, Papillomaviridae, Early Detection of Cancer

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review