COMPARATIVE STUDY
EVALUATION STUDIES
JOURNAL ARTICLE
RESEARCH SUPPORT, NON-U.S. GOV'T
Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

Direct comparison of two vaginal self-sampling devices for the detection of human papillomavirus infections.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Two devices for vaginal self-sampling of dry cell material (Evalyn Brush, Rovers Medical Devices; Qvintip, Aprovix) were compared using the Abbott RealTime High Risk HPV test.

STUDY DESIGN: Both self-sampling devices (change of order with every patient) including instructions for use and a questionnaire were handed to 146 patients in a colposcopy clinic prior to scheduled colposcopies with collection of cervical reference specimens by gynaecologists using a broom-like device. Matched self-collected and physician collected specimens were transferred to ThinPrep medium and tested for the presence of hr-HPV. Biopsies were taken if indicated by colposcopy.

RESULTS: Evaluation of 136 patients with complete data (136/146; 93.2%) showed high agreement of overall hr-HPV detection rates between self-collected and clinician-collected specimens (Evalyn: 91.2% [kappa 0.822]; Qvintip: 89.0% [kappa 0.779]). Colposcopy and histological evaluation revealed 55 women without cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN), 32 CIN1, 34 CIN2, 14 CIN3 and one adenocarcinoma in situ. Hr-HPV testing detected all CIN3+ cases on the clinician-taken or Evalyn self-samples (14/14) and 93% of them on the Qvintip samples (13/14). There was no significant difference regarding the sensitivity for CIN2+ or CIN3+ and specificity of hr-HPV testing on self- vs. clinician samples and on Evalyn vs. Qvintip. Based on signal intensities of β-globin, the observed DNA concentration with Evalyn samples (mean CN: 22.0; 95%-CI: 21.5-22.6) was found to be significantly higher compared to that of Qvintip samples (mean CN: 23.8; 95%-CI 23.2-24.4), regardless of the order of self-sampling (p<0.0001). Most women considered self-sampling easy and comfortable. Qvintip was considered easier than the Evalyn Brush to understand (p<0.001) and to use (p=0.002).

DISCUSSION: This study confirms that hr-HPV testing with a clinically validated PCR-based HPV assay is as accurate on self-samples as on clinician-samples without significant difference between both self-sampling devices.

Full text links

We have located links that may give you full text access.
Can't access the paper?
Try logging in through your university/institutional subscription. For a smoother one-click institutional access experience, please use our mobile app.

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Mobile app image

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.

By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.

Your Privacy Choices Toggle icon

You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app