{"title":"基于hpv的宫颈癌筛查的即时检测的性能特征:系统回顾和荟萃分析。","authors":"Ruchika Gupta, Sompal Singh, Sanjay Gupta","doi":"10.1093/pubmed/fdae306","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>We aimed to conduct an updated and comprehensive summary of the sensitivity and specificity of three human papillomavirus (HPV) point-of-care (POC) tests (careHPV™, oncoE6™ cervical test, Xpert® HPV) to guide resource-constrained countries for their implementation in cervical cancer screening.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Databases including Medline, Embase, Web of Science and cumulated index in nursing and allied health literature (CINAHL) were searched between January 2004 and October 2024. Observational studies analyzing the three tests for cervical cancer screening were included. Pooled estimates for the performance characteristics were calculated using random-effect models.</p><p><strong>Findings: </strong>Of the 3976 records, 33 studies were included. The sensitivity and specificity of careHPV™ for detection of CIN2+ lesions in self-collected samples were 75.6% and 85.6% compared to 86.4% and 80.4% for physician-collected samples. The sensitivity and specificity of OncoE6™ cervical test were 54.5% and 98.4%, respectively, for physician-collected samples. Xpert® HPV had a sensitivity and specificity of 91.5% and 56.5% in self-collected vaginal samples (SCSs), 92.3% and 53.3%, respectively, in physician-collected cervical samples.</p><p><strong>Interpretation: </strong>Both careHPV™ and Xpert® HPV have a good sensitivity and specificity as a POC cervical cancer screening method. These methods also hold potential for use on SCSs.</p><p><strong>Funding: </strong>None.</p>","PeriodicalId":94107,"journal":{"name":"Journal of public health (Oxford, England)","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Performance characteristics of the point-of-care tests for HPV-based cervical cancer screening: a systematic review and meta-analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Ruchika Gupta, Sompal Singh, Sanjay Gupta\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/pubmed/fdae306\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>We aimed to conduct an updated and comprehensive summary of the sensitivity and specificity of three human papillomavirus (HPV) point-of-care (POC) tests (careHPV™, oncoE6™ cervical test, Xpert® HPV) to guide resource-constrained countries for their implementation in cervical cancer screening.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Databases including Medline, Embase, Web of Science and cumulated index in nursing and allied health literature (CINAHL) were searched between January 2004 and October 2024. Observational studies analyzing the three tests for cervical cancer screening were included. Pooled estimates for the performance characteristics were calculated using random-effect models.</p><p><strong>Findings: </strong>Of the 3976 records, 33 studies were included. The sensitivity and specificity of careHPV™ for detection of CIN2+ lesions in self-collected samples were 75.6% and 85.6% compared to 86.4% and 80.4% for physician-collected samples. The sensitivity and specificity of OncoE6™ cervical test were 54.5% and 98.4%, respectively, for physician-collected samples. Xpert® HPV had a sensitivity and specificity of 91.5% and 56.5% in self-collected vaginal samples (SCSs), 92.3% and 53.3%, respectively, in physician-collected cervical samples.</p><p><strong>Interpretation: </strong>Both careHPV™ and Xpert® HPV have a good sensitivity and specificity as a POC cervical cancer screening method. These methods also hold potential for use on SCSs.</p><p><strong>Funding: </strong>None.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":94107,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of public health (Oxford, England)\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of public health (Oxford, England)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/pubmed/fdae306\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of public health (Oxford, England)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/pubmed/fdae306","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
背景:我们旨在对三种人乳头瘤病毒(HPV)即时检测(careHPV™,oncoE6™宫颈检测,Xpert®HPV)的敏感性和特异性进行更新和全面的总结,以指导资源有限的国家实施宫颈癌筛查。方法:检索2004年1月~ 2024年10月的Medline、Embase、Web of Science和中国护理与相关健康文献累积索引(CINAHL)数据库。观察性研究分析了宫颈癌筛查的三种检测方法。使用随机效应模型计算性能特征的汇总估计。研究结果:在3976份记录中,包括33项研究。自采标本中careHPV™检测CIN2+病变的敏感性和特异性分别为75.6%和85.6%,而医生采集标本的敏感性和特异性分别为86.4%和80.4%。在医生采集的样本中,OncoE6™宫颈检测的敏感性和特异性分别为54.5%和98.4%。Xpert®HPV在自己采集的阴道样本(SCSs)中的敏感性和特异性分别为91.5%和56.5%,在医生采集的宫颈样本中分别为92.3%和53.3%。结论:careHPV™和Xpert®HPV作为POC宫颈癌筛查方法具有良好的敏感性和特异性。这些方法也有可能用于scs。资金:没有。
Performance characteristics of the point-of-care tests for HPV-based cervical cancer screening: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Background: We aimed to conduct an updated and comprehensive summary of the sensitivity and specificity of three human papillomavirus (HPV) point-of-care (POC) tests (careHPV™, oncoE6™ cervical test, Xpert® HPV) to guide resource-constrained countries for their implementation in cervical cancer screening.
Methods: Databases including Medline, Embase, Web of Science and cumulated index in nursing and allied health literature (CINAHL) were searched between January 2004 and October 2024. Observational studies analyzing the three tests for cervical cancer screening were included. Pooled estimates for the performance characteristics were calculated using random-effect models.
Findings: Of the 3976 records, 33 studies were included. The sensitivity and specificity of careHPV™ for detection of CIN2+ lesions in self-collected samples were 75.6% and 85.6% compared to 86.4% and 80.4% for physician-collected samples. The sensitivity and specificity of OncoE6™ cervical test were 54.5% and 98.4%, respectively, for physician-collected samples. Xpert® HPV had a sensitivity and specificity of 91.5% and 56.5% in self-collected vaginal samples (SCSs), 92.3% and 53.3%, respectively, in physician-collected cervical samples.
Interpretation: Both careHPV™ and Xpert® HPV have a good sensitivity and specificity as a POC cervical cancer screening method. These methods also hold potential for use on SCSs.