{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.029443254817987152, 'fraction_numerical': 0.006423982869379015, 'mean_word_length': 5.127868852459017, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?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': 1, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Concordance of Self- and Clinician-Collected Anal Swabs to Detect Human Papillomavirus in a Sample of HIV-Negative Men.

OBJECTIVE
The aim of this study was to determine the concordance of self- and clinician-collected anorectal swabs for the detection of human papillomavirus (HPV) DNA in a population of HIV-negative men who have sex with men (MSM).


METHODS
This cross-sectional study involved recruitment of HIV-negative MSM in a Midwestern US metropolitan area to collect paired sequential self- and clinician-collected anorectal swabs using illustrated instructions. Swabs were tested for type-specific HPV DNA with a comparison of type-specific HPV categories detected by each method. The sensitivity and specificity of self-collection were calculated assuming clinician collection as the criterion standard. McNemar's test and κ statistics were used to determine percent agreement and concordance of self- and clinician-collected swab results.


RESULTS
Seventy-eight participants had paired anorectal swab samples of adequate quality for analyses. The sensitivity and specificity of self-collected swabs for detection of all high-risk HPV DNA types were 69.8% and 91.4%, respectively. Similar degrees of sensitivity and specificity of self-collection were seen for other groups of high-risk HPV types. Percent agreement and κ statistic for self- and clinician-collected swabs for all high-risk HPV types were 80.8% and 0.53, respectively.


CONCLUSIONS
Self-collected anorectal swab samples showed lower sensitivity but moderate to high specificity for detection of high-risk and vaccine-preventable HPV types compared with clinician-collected swab samples. Self-collection instructional details and the thoroughness of clinician collection of samples may have impacted sensitivity and specificity, suggesting a need to optimize and standardize instructions.