{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.044086773967809655, 'fraction_numerical': 0.03848845346396081, 'mean_word_length': 5.059322033898305, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 1, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Comparison of two self‐sampling methods for human papillomavirus (HPV) DNA testing among women with high prevalence rates

One major advantage of molecular assays for human papillomavirus (HPV) DNA detection is that these assays can be performed on self‐collected samples unlike cytology or visual inspection with acetic acid (VIA). This cross‐sectional study was carried out between March 2017 and April 2019 to compare the diagnostic performance in self‐collected urine and vaginal samples for HPV DNA detection. Viral DNA was extracted from processed samples using a Qiagen viral DNA extraction Kit (QIAamp DNA Mini Kit). To detect four common high‐risk HPV types (16, 18, 31, 45), multiplex real‐time polymerase chain reaction (PCR) targeting the LCR/E6/E7 region of the HPV genome was performed in ABI 7500 cycler (Applied Biosystems). The negative samples were screened by conventional PCR targeting the L1 capsid region to exclude other HPV types. The overall agreement between the two self‐collecting sampling methods was 64.04% with a κ value of 0.29 pointing towards a fair agreement (P < .01). The sensitivity of HPV DNA detection in urine samples was 57.95% (47.52%, 67.72), and specificity was 84.6% (66.47%, 93.85%) when compared with vaginal samples. The study concludes that self‐collected vaginal HPV DNA testing is more sensitive than unpreserved‐urine samples for HPV DNA detection in a hospital‐based setting.