Journal of Lower Genital Tract Disease · 2019 · 13 citations · 9 references
Life SciencesInfectious DiseasesMicrobiologyDiagnostic MicrobiologyMedical MicrobiologyVirologyHiv DiagnosisHiv EpidemiologyHiv TestingHuman Papillomavirus InfectionSexually Transmitted InfectionsViral DiagnosticsCross-sectional Correlation StudyCross-sectional EpidemiologyHigh-risk Human Papillomavirus TypesHpv ScreeningHpv SerologyHuman Papillomavirus ScreeningSelf-collected SpecimensSensitivity
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine the concordance of self- and clinician-collected anorectal swabs for the detection of human papillomavirus (HPV) DNA in a population of HIV-negative men who have sex with men (MSM). METHODS: This cross-sectional study involved recruitment of HIV-negative MSM in a Midwestern US metropolitan area to collect paired sequential self- and clinician-collected anorectal swabs using illustrated instructions. Swabs were tested for type-specific HPV DNA with a comparison of type-specific HPV categories detected by each method. The sensitivity and specificity of self-collection were calculated assuming clinician collection as the criterion standard. McNemar's test and κ statistics were used to determine percent agreement and concordance of self- and clinician-collected swab results. RESULTS: Seventy-eight participants had paired anorectal swab samples of adequate quality for analyses. The sensitivity and specificity of self-collected swabs for detection of all high-risk HPV DNA types were 69.8% and 91.4%, respectively. Similar degrees of sensitivity and specificity of self-collection were seen for other groups of high-risk HPV types. Percent agreement and κ statistic for self- and clinician-collected swabs for all high-risk HPV types were 80.8% and 0.53, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Self-collected anorectal swab samples showed lower sensitivity but moderate to high specificity for detection of high-risk and vaccine-preventable HPV types compared with clinician-collected swab samples. Self-collection instructional details and the thoroughness of clinician collection of samples may have impacted sensitivity and specificity, suggesting a need to optimize and standardize instructions.
9
Rebecca L. Siegel, Deepa Naishadham, Ahmedin Jemal · CA A Cancer Journal for Clinicians · 2012 · 10.7K citations · Full text
Judith A. Aberg, Joel E. Gallant, Khalil G. Ghanem et al. · Clinical Infectious Diseases · 2013 · 496 citations · Full text
Judith A. Aberg, Joel E. Gallant, Khalil G. Ghanem et al. · Clinical Infectious Diseases · 2013 · 266 citations · Full text