男性生殖器部位人乳头瘤病毒检测的两种临床采样技术比较评估:随机对照研究。

IF 3.2 3区 生物学 Q2 BIOTECHNOLOGY & APPLIED MICROBIOLOGY
Jinyu Zhang, Linge Li, Shangying Hu, Ningbo Wu, Huiqin Guo, Jian Yin, Shimin Chen, Changchang Dun, Qinjing Pan, Fanghui Zhao
{"title":"男性生殖器部位人乳头瘤病毒检测的两种临床采样技术比较评估:随机对照研究。","authors":"Jinyu Zhang, Linge Li, Shangying Hu, Ningbo Wu, Huiqin Guo, Jian Yin, Shimin Chen, Changchang Dun, Qinjing Pan, Fanghui Zhao","doi":"10.1093/jambio/lxae184","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aims: </strong>The optimal sampling methods for detecting human papillomavirus (HPV) in male genital sites remain unclear. This study aimed to assess the performance, acceptability, and comfort of two sampling techniques for male genital HPV detection.</p><p><strong>Methods and results: </strong>A total of 490 men aged 18-45 were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to undergo either the rub-brush (nail file followed by swab) or brush-only method (swab only) for sampling at external genitalia sites (PGS) and perineum/perianal (PA) sites. HPV distribution, specimen validity (β-globin as a quality reference), and participant acceptability and comfort were evaluated between the two sampling methods. The brush-only method demonstrated non-inferiority in detecting 14 high-risk HPV types (16/18/31/33/35/39/45/51/52/56/58/59/66/68) compared to the rub-brush method in both PGS (18.9% vs. 16.9%) and PA (10.5% vs. 11.9%). Although no significant differences were observed in positive rates for other HPV types, the brush-only method had a significantly higher invalid rate in PA (8.5% vs. 1.5%). Approximately 85.0% of participants reported good acceptability and comfort with both sampling methods, regardless of anatomical sites.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This study suggests comparable performance, acceptability and comfort between the two sampling techniques for HPV detection. However, the rub-brush method may offer an advantage in higher sample validity.</p>","PeriodicalId":15036,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Applied Microbiology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparative evaluation of two clinical sampling techniques for HPV detection in male genital sites: a randomized controlled study.\",\"authors\":\"Jinyu Zhang, Linge Li, Shangying Hu, Ningbo Wu, Huiqin Guo, Jian Yin, Shimin Chen, Changchang Dun, Qinjing Pan, Fanghui Zhao\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/jambio/lxae184\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Aims: </strong>The optimal sampling methods for detecting human papillomavirus (HPV) in male genital sites remain unclear. This study aimed to assess the performance, acceptability, and comfort of two sampling techniques for male genital HPV detection.</p><p><strong>Methods and results: </strong>A total of 490 men aged 18-45 were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to undergo either the rub-brush (nail file followed by swab) or brush-only method (swab only) for sampling at external genitalia sites (PGS) and perineum/perianal (PA) sites. HPV distribution, specimen validity (β-globin as a quality reference), and participant acceptability and comfort were evaluated between the two sampling methods. The brush-only method demonstrated non-inferiority in detecting 14 high-risk HPV types (16/18/31/33/35/39/45/51/52/56/58/59/66/68) compared to the rub-brush method in both PGS (18.9% vs. 16.9%) and PA (10.5% vs. 11.9%). Although no significant differences were observed in positive rates for other HPV types, the brush-only method had a significantly higher invalid rate in PA (8.5% vs. 1.5%). Approximately 85.0% of participants reported good acceptability and comfort with both sampling methods, regardless of anatomical sites.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This study suggests comparable performance, acceptability and comfort between the two sampling techniques for HPV detection. However, the rub-brush method may offer an advantage in higher sample validity.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15036,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Applied Microbiology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Applied Microbiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"99\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/jambio/lxae184\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"生物学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"BIOTECHNOLOGY & APPLIED MICROBIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Applied Microbiology","FirstCategoryId":"99","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jambio/lxae184","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"BIOTECHNOLOGY & APPLIED MICROBIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:检测男性生殖器部位人类乳头瘤病毒(HPV)的最佳采样方法仍不明确。本研究旨在评估两种男性生殖器 HPV 检测采样技术的性能、可接受性和舒适度:按 1:1 的比例随机分配 490 名 18 至 45 岁的男性,在外生殖器部位(PGS)和会阴/肛周部位(PA)进行擦-刷法(先用指甲锉再用棉签)或纯刷法(仅用棉签)取样。对两种取样方法的 HPV 分布、标本有效性(β-球蛋白作为质量参考)以及参与者的可接受性和舒适度进行了评估。在 PGS(18.9% 对 16.9%)和 PA(10.5% 对 11.9%)中,纯毛刷法在检测 14 种高风险 HPV 类型(16/18/31/33/35/39/45/51/52/56/58/59/66/68)方面与摩擦刷法相比没有劣势。虽然在其他 HPV 类型的阳性率方面没有观察到明显差异,但在 PA 中,纯毛刷法的无效率明显更高(8.5% 对 1.5%)。约 85.0% 的参与者表示对这两种取样方法的接受度和舒适度都很好,与解剖部位无关:本研究表明,两种采样技术在检测 HPV 方面的性能、可接受性和舒适度相当。结论:这项研究表明,两种采样技术在检测 HPV 方面的性能、可接受性和舒适度相当,但摩擦刷法可能在样本有效性方面更具优势。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparative evaluation of two clinical sampling techniques for HPV detection in male genital sites: a randomized controlled study.

Aims: The optimal sampling methods for detecting human papillomavirus (HPV) in male genital sites remain unclear. This study aimed to assess the performance, acceptability, and comfort of two sampling techniques for male genital HPV detection.

Methods and results: A total of 490 men aged 18-45 were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to undergo either the rub-brush (nail file followed by swab) or brush-only method (swab only) for sampling at external genitalia sites (PGS) and perineum/perianal (PA) sites. HPV distribution, specimen validity (β-globin as a quality reference), and participant acceptability and comfort were evaluated between the two sampling methods. The brush-only method demonstrated non-inferiority in detecting 14 high-risk HPV types (16/18/31/33/35/39/45/51/52/56/58/59/66/68) compared to the rub-brush method in both PGS (18.9% vs. 16.9%) and PA (10.5% vs. 11.9%). Although no significant differences were observed in positive rates for other HPV types, the brush-only method had a significantly higher invalid rate in PA (8.5% vs. 1.5%). Approximately 85.0% of participants reported good acceptability and comfort with both sampling methods, regardless of anatomical sites.

Conclusions: This study suggests comparable performance, acceptability and comfort between the two sampling techniques for HPV detection. However, the rub-brush method may offer an advantage in higher sample validity.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Applied Microbiology
Journal of Applied Microbiology 生物-生物工程与应用微生物
CiteScore
7.30
自引率
2.50%
发文量
427
审稿时长
2.7 months
期刊介绍: Journal of & Letters in Applied Microbiology are two of the flagship research journals of the Society for Applied Microbiology (SfAM). For more than 75 years they have been publishing top quality research and reviews in the broad field of applied microbiology. The journals are provided to all SfAM members as well as having a global online readership totalling more than 500,000 downloads per year in more than 200 countries. Submitting authors can expect fast decision and publication times, averaging 33 days to first decision and 34 days from acceptance to online publication. There are no page charges.
×
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