Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorVega Crespo, Bernardo
dc.contributor.authorNeira, Vivian Alejandra
dc.contributor.authorOrtíz Segarra, José
dc.contributor.authorMaldonado Rengel, Ruth
dc.contributor.authorLópez, Diana
dc.contributor.authorPaz Orellana, María
dc.contributor.authorGómez, Andrea
dc.contributor.authorVicuña, María José
dc.contributor.authorMejía, Jorge
dc.contributor.authorBenoy, Ina
dc.contributor.authorParrón Carreño, Tesifón 
dc.contributor.authorVerhoeven, Veronique
dc.date.accessioned2022-05-06T17:23:39Z
dc.date.available2022-05-06T17:23:39Z
dc.date.issued2022-04-12
dc.identifier.issn1660-4601
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10835/13682
dc.description.abstractBackground: HPV primary screening has shown effectiveness for cancer prevention; however, gynaecological examination is considered uncomfortable. Self-sampling methods increase the acceptance of screening. The aim of this study is to compare the sensitivity and specificity of clinician sampling versus vaginal and urine self-sampling for HPV diagnosis. Methods: A diagnostic test study was conducted in a rural parish of Cuenca, Ecuador. A total of 120 women participated. Each participant self-collected urine and vaginal samples and underwent clinician sampling for HPV testing. The latter was considered as the golden standard. All three samples were processed with the same amplification and hybridization protocol for HPV detection (Hybribio) following the manufacturer’s instructions. Results: Characteristics of the participants were: median age 35 years; 40.8% married; 46.7% had a primary level of education; and median age of sexual onset, 17.6 years. The prevalence of any type of HPV with clinician sampling was 15.0%, 17.5% with urine sampling and 18.3% with vaginal self-sampling. Self-sampling sensitivity reached 94.4% (IC 74.2–99.9), and specificity 92.1% (IC 85.2–95.9). Urine sampling had a sensitivity of 88.8% (IC 67.2, 96.9), and specificity 94.1% (IC 67.2–96.9). The negative predictive value was 98.9% (IC 94.2–99.8) for vaginal self-sampling and 97.6% (IC 92.6–99.4) for urine sampling. Conclusions: This study shows that vaginal and urine self-sampling methods have similar sensitivity and specificity compared with clinician sampling for the diagnosis of HPV. The correlation between HPV genotypes among the three tests is satisfactory.es_ES
dc.language.isoenes_ES
dc.publisherMDPIes_ES
dc.rightsAttribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 Internacional*
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/*
dc.subjectHPVes_ES
dc.subjectself-samplinges_ES
dc.subjecturine samplinges_ES
dc.subjectclinician samplinges_ES
dc.subjectsensitivity and specificityes_ES
dc.titleRole of Self-Sampling for Cervical Cancer Screening: Diagnostic Test Properties of Three Tests for the Diagnosis of HPV in Rural Communities of Cuenca, Ecuadores_ES
dc.typeinfo:eu-repo/semantics/articlees_ES
dc.relation.publisherversionhttps://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/8/4619es_ES
dc.rights.accessRightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccesses_ES
dc.identifier.doi10.3390/ijerph19084619


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 Internacional
Except where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 Internacional