A comparative study of self-collected versus clinician-collected specimens in detecting high-risk HPV infection: a prospective cross-sectional study.

IF 2 Q2 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY
Obstetrics and Gynecology Science Pub Date : 2024-11-01 Epub Date: 2024-10-08 DOI:10.5468/ogs.24117
Natnipa Parapob, Suree Lekawanvijit, Theera Tongsong, Kittipat Charoenkwan, Charuwan Tantipalakorn
{"title":"A comparative study of self-collected versus clinician-collected specimens in detecting high-risk HPV infection: a prospective cross-sectional study.","authors":"Natnipa Parapob, Suree Lekawanvijit, Theera Tongsong, Kittipat Charoenkwan, Charuwan Tantipalakorn","doi":"10.5468/ogs.24117","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The primary objective of this study was to compare the detection rate of high-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) infection between self-sampling to collect vaginal specimens and clinician sampling to collect cervical specimens, as well as the correlation between the two techniques. The secondary objective was to assess satisfaction with selfsampling for HPV testing.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>From October 2021 to September 2022, women positive for HPV 16/18 and other 12 high-risk HPV genotypes and cytological Ascus were enrolled. All participants were instructed on the method for self-collection of HPV samples. Self-collected vaginal samples and clinician-collected cervical samples were subjected to HPV DNA typing.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Paired self- and clinician-collected specimens were obtained from 104 women with positive HPV-positive results. The detection rate of high-risk HPV infection was comparable between the two techniques: 79/98 (80.6%) vs. 81/98 (82.7%) for the self-sampling and clinician-sampling techniques, respectively (McNemar's test; P=0.774). The agreement in detecting HPV infection was substantial, with a kappa coefficient of 0.75. More than 90% of the participants rated self-collection as satisfactory to very satisfactory because of its convenience and safety. Regarding methods of further follow-up, 51% of the participants chose self-sampling, whereas the remaining participants preferred collection by clinicians. No intervention-related complications were observed.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The self-sampling technique for HPV testing was as effective as the clinician-sampling technique, and both techniques were substantially correlated in detecting high-risk HPV infection. The self-sampling method appears to be highly satisfactory and may provide better compliance for the detection of cervical HPV infection.</p>","PeriodicalId":37602,"journal":{"name":"Obstetrics and Gynecology Science","volume":" ","pages":"557-564"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11581809/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Obstetrics and Gynecology Science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5468/ogs.24117","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/10/8 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: The primary objective of this study was to compare the detection rate of high-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) infection between self-sampling to collect vaginal specimens and clinician sampling to collect cervical specimens, as well as the correlation between the two techniques. The secondary objective was to assess satisfaction with selfsampling for HPV testing.

Methods: From October 2021 to September 2022, women positive for HPV 16/18 and other 12 high-risk HPV genotypes and cytological Ascus were enrolled. All participants were instructed on the method for self-collection of HPV samples. Self-collected vaginal samples and clinician-collected cervical samples were subjected to HPV DNA typing.

Results: Paired self- and clinician-collected specimens were obtained from 104 women with positive HPV-positive results. The detection rate of high-risk HPV infection was comparable between the two techniques: 79/98 (80.6%) vs. 81/98 (82.7%) for the self-sampling and clinician-sampling techniques, respectively (McNemar's test; P=0.774). The agreement in detecting HPV infection was substantial, with a kappa coefficient of 0.75. More than 90% of the participants rated self-collection as satisfactory to very satisfactory because of its convenience and safety. Regarding methods of further follow-up, 51% of the participants chose self-sampling, whereas the remaining participants preferred collection by clinicians. No intervention-related complications were observed.

Conclusion: The self-sampling technique for HPV testing was as effective as the clinician-sampling technique, and both techniques were substantially correlated in detecting high-risk HPV infection. The self-sampling method appears to be highly satisfactory and may provide better compliance for the detection of cervical HPV infection.

自取标本与临床医生采集标本在检测高危 HPV 感染方面的比较研究:一项前瞻性横断面研究。
研究目的本研究的主要目的是比较自我采样采集阴道标本与临床医生采样采集宫颈标本的高危人乳头瘤病毒(HPV)感染检出率,以及两种技术之间的相关性。次要目标是评估HPV检测自我采样的满意度:方法:从 2021 年 10 月到 2022 年 9 月,对 HPV 16/18 型和其他 12 种高风险 HPV 基因型阳性以及细胞学 ASCUS 的女性进行了登记。所有参与者都接受了HPV样本自取方法的指导。对自取的阴道样本和临床医生采集的宫颈样本进行HPV DNA分型:结果:从 104 名 HPV 阳性的妇女中获得了自取和临床医生采集的配对标本。两种技术的高危 HPV 感染检出率相当:自我采样和临床医生采样技术的检出率分别为 79/98 (80.6%) vs. 81/98 (82.7%)(McNemar 检验;P=0.774)。检测 HPV 感染的一致性很高,卡帕系数为 0.75。超过 90% 的参与者对自我采集的便利性和安全性表示满意或非常满意。关于进一步随访的方法,51%的参与者选择自行采样,而其余参与者则倾向于由临床医生采集。没有观察到与干预相关的并发症:结论:HPV检测的自我采样技术与临床医生采样技术同样有效,两种技术在检测高危HPV感染方面有很大的相关性。自我采样法似乎非常令人满意,而且在检测宫颈 HPV 感染方面具有更好的依从性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Obstetrics and Gynecology Science
Obstetrics and Gynecology Science Medicine-Obstetrics and Gynecology
CiteScore
3.80
自引率
15.80%
发文量
58
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊介绍: Obstetrics & Gynecology Science (NLM title: Obstet Gynecol Sci) is an international peer-review journal that published basic, translational, clinical research, and clinical practice guideline to promote women’s health and prevent obstetric and gynecologic disorders. The journal has an international editorial board and is published in English on the 15th day of every other month. Submitted manuscripts should not contain previously published material and should not be under consideration for publication elsewhere. The journal has been publishing articles since 1958. The aim of the journal is to publish original articles, reviews, case reports, short communications, letters to the editor, and video articles that have the potential to change the practices in women''s health care. The journal’s main focus is the diagnosis, treatment, prediction, and prevention of obstetric and gynecologic disorders. Because the life expectancy of Korean and Asian women is increasing, the journal''s editors are particularly interested in the health of elderly women in these population groups. The journal also publishes articles about reproductive biology, stem cell research, and artificial intelligence research for women; additionally, it provides insights into the physiology and mechanisms of obstetric and gynecologic diseases.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信