↓ Skip to main content

Good concordance of HPV detection between cervico-vaginal self-samples and general practitioner-collected samples using the Cobas 4800 HPV DNA test

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Infectious Diseases, July 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
11 Mendeley
Title
Good concordance of HPV detection between cervico-vaginal self-samples and general practitioner-collected samples using the Cobas 4800 HPV DNA test
Published in
BMC Infectious Diseases, July 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12879-018-3254-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mette Tranberg, Jørgen Skov Jensen, Bodil Hammer Bech, Jan Blaakær, Hans Svanholm, Berit Andersen

Abstract

Studies comparing self-samples and clinician-collected samples for high-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) detection using clinically validated PCR-based HPV DNA assays are limited. We measured the concordance of HPV detection between home-based self-sampling and general practitioner (GP) sampling using the Cobas 4800 HPV DNA test and studied women's accept of home-based self-sampling. Paired GP-collected samples and cervico-vaginal self-samples were obtained from 213 women aged 30-59 years diagnosed with ASC-US within the cervical cancer screening program. After undergoing cervical cytology at their GP, the women collected a self-sample with the Evalyn Brush at home and completed a questionnaire. Both samples were HPV-tested using the Cobas 4800 test. Histology results were available for those who tested HPV positive in GP-collected samples. We observed good concordance for HPV detection between self-samples and GP-collected samples (κ: 0.70, 95% CI: 0.58-0.81). No underlying CIN2+ cases were missed by self-sampling. Women evaluated that self-sampling was easy (97.2%, 95% CI: 93.9-98.9%) and comfortable (94.8%, 95% CI: 90.9-97.4%). Home-based self-sampling using the Evalyn Brush and the Cobas 4800 test is an applicable and reliable alternative to GP-sampling.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 11 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 11 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Unspecified 3 27%
Professor 2 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 18%
Student > Master 1 9%
Student > Bachelor 1 9%
Other 2 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Unspecified 4 36%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 18%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 18%
Psychology 1 9%
Social Sciences 1 9%
Other 1 9%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 02 August 2018.
All research outputs
#11,820,298
of 13,322,622 outputs
Outputs from BMC Infectious Diseases
#4,235
of 4,957 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#232,617
of 268,977 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Infectious Diseases
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,322,622 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,957 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.8. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 268,977 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them