Objective(s). To compare the type-specific human papillomavirus (HPV) recover y from physician and patient-collected samples. Methods. Three hundred thirty- four (334) women attending colposcopy clinics in three count...Objective(s). To compare the type-specific human papillomavirus (HPV) recover y from physician and patient-collected samples. Methods. Three hundred thirty- four (334) women attending colposcopy clinics in three countries were enrolled i n this cross-sectional study. Cervicovaginal samples were collected by patients and physicians and processed with polymerase chain reaction and reverse line bl ot genotyping. McNemar’s Chi-squared tests and Kappa statistics were utilized to determine statistical associations between physician-versus patient-collect ed samples. Results. Oncogenic HPV infection was identified in 23.2%of patient -collected specimens compared to 34.9%of physician-collected specimens. Physi cian sampling detected significantly more infections with type 16 and 52 than di d self-sampling and significantly more oncogenic HPV infection overall. For non -oncogenic HPV detection, there was no statistical difference between physician -and patientcollected samples. Conclusion(s). Patient sampling for HPV using a single vaginal brush does not identify all oncogenic HPV subtypes.展开更多
文摘Objective(s). To compare the type-specific human papillomavirus (HPV) recover y from physician and patient-collected samples. Methods. Three hundred thirty- four (334) women attending colposcopy clinics in three countries were enrolled i n this cross-sectional study. Cervicovaginal samples were collected by patients and physicians and processed with polymerase chain reaction and reverse line bl ot genotyping. McNemar’s Chi-squared tests and Kappa statistics were utilized to determine statistical associations between physician-versus patient-collect ed samples. Results. Oncogenic HPV infection was identified in 23.2%of patient -collected specimens compared to 34.9%of physician-collected specimens. Physi cian sampling detected significantly more infections with type 16 and 52 than di d self-sampling and significantly more oncogenic HPV infection overall. For non -oncogenic HPV detection, there was no statistical difference between physician -and patientcollected samples. Conclusion(s). Patient sampling for HPV using a single vaginal brush does not identify all oncogenic HPV subtypes.
