Skip to main content
. 2012 Dec;50(12):3870–3876. doi: 10.1128/JCM.01698-12

TABLE 1.

Comparison of HPV detection results in samples collected in liquid-based medium and solid carrier devices among CVT participantsa

Participant group Results by collection method
% Positive
Agreement
Kappa (95% CI) Pc
PC+/FTA+ PC/FTA+ PC+/FTA PC/FTA Total FTA PC Overall Among positives
All visits
    Any HPV 141 33 5 140 319 54.5 45.8 0.88 0.79 0.76 (0.69–0.83) <0.001
    Carcinogenic HPVb 78 21 6 214 319 31.0 26.3 0.92 0.74 0.79 (0.72–0.87) 0.006
Colposcopy visits
    Any HPV 60 11 3 27 101 70.3 62.4 0.86 0.81 0.69 (0.54–0.84) 0.057
    Carcinogenic HPV 37 10 5 49 101 46.5 41.6 0.85 0.71 0.70 (0.56–0.84) 0.302
Regular screening visits
    Any HPV 81 22 2 113 218 47.2 38.1 0.89 0.77 0.78 (0.69–0.86) <0.001
    Carcinogenic HPV 41 11 1 165 218 23.9 19.3 0.94 0.77 0.84 (0.75–0.93) 0.006
a

PC, PreservCyt, liquid-based medium; FTA, solid carrier device.

b

That is, HPV16, -18, -31, -33, -35, -39, -45, -51, -52, -56, -58, -66, and -68/73.

c

Calculated by using the exact McNemar χ2 test.