Tuesday , May 30 2023

Kudos about university restriction by promoting home HPV tests for women


Summary of our feedback

HPVThe release focuses on the recent "evidence in principle" study, which found that home-based testing kits could be used by low-income women who have limited access to medical care for a human papillomavirus (HPV) infection that can lead to cervical cancer. The output could do more to find out the sensitivity and specificity of the screening tools, but it must be made clear that more work is needed before this approach can be used on a large scale.

Why this is a question

As noted by the National Cancer Institute, almost all cervical cancer is caused by HPV – most of them caused by separate HPV strains. And early diagnosis of HPV infection can help prevent cancer or allow patients and healthcare providers alert that they need to be monitored to prevent cervical cancer. This means that screening for HPV is important, and especially for patients with limited resources who may not have regular access to health care providers for screening or regular screening. And precisely this study is trying to focus on those at-risk groups. It is important to make it clear – as has been done in this release – costs remain a challenge and regulatory barriers still exist. Most importantly, liberation stresses that before doing this, from the theoretical point of view, to the pursuit of the work, it is necessary to make more jobs.


Is the newsletter properly discussing the costs of intervention?


Release does not determine the pricing for HPV screening, which includes a test kit, an analysis, and an additional clinical visit. However, the release clearly indicates that "much remains to be done, for example, to determine how to make the process of self-respect more efficient and cost effective." This approval is sufficient to earn a satisfactory result.

Does the news release sufficiently appreciate the benefits of treatment / test / product / procedure?


This is a difficult question, since it is unclear how the relevant benefit should be defined. The very purpose of the study itself is determined by evaluating the "validity and acceptability" self-assessment of the self-study of HPV screening samples. If part of the "admissibility" assessment was to determine whether self-driving kits have improved screening performance, should the benefit be defined as successful submission of screening samples? If so, the release did not succeed, because it did not even tell readers how many women sent screenings by post (according to a related article of 284 women). However, the validity is easier to deal with. How good were the samples collected on the website compared to other screening tests? Graduation turns to this head. It says home-tested 12.4% of women were exposed to high-risk HIV infections. In-Clinic, collected tests showed that 15.5% of the patients had high-risk HPV infections. And clinical trials showed that 11.4% of women had high-risk HPV infections. These are difficult figures, and we will release doubts about this one. However, these three different numbers give rise to some issues that the release does not provide a satisfactory solution. More on it below.

Is the news press enough to explain / spell out about intervention?


The issue has not focused on two main potential damages, namely, that someone with high-risk HPV has not been identified, and "wrong positive" misdiagnosis in people who did not have high-risk HPV. This is the difference between "sensitivity" and "specificity". This is especially important in this case because HPV screening is associated with problems of both specificity and sensitivity, and since the output itself clearly shows that people at increased risk in some screening tests, but not others. Missing someone at high risk is obviously problematic. However, it is said that one faces significant medical risks that do not actually occur can also affect future healthcare and its consequences are both physical and financial.

Another potential hazard could be that patients who send the test have a known rate but have not followed up, leaving clinicians with positive tests and patients who have lost their observation, which would weaken screening effects.

Does the press release seem to understand the quality of evidence?


This opens up a very simple problem: release delivers important information to readers and then does not explain it. These concerns are caused by the lack of a comparison of screening results in three types of tests: at home, the collected tests showed that 12.4% of women had high-risk HPV infections; Clinic self-employed tests showed that 15.5% had high-risk HPV infections; and clinical trials showed that 11.4% of women had high-risk HPV infection.

For most readers, the difference between 11.4% and 15.5% seems to be high – more than 4%. If they interact at home, they would see that eight people (out of 193) were diagnosed as being at high risk in one scenario, but not in another. What gives But release relates only to this quote, which states: "We found a comparative discovery between self esteem and a doctor's collection." It is not useful. In addition, the release more than once relates to the fact that "all women with high-grade cervical cancer … were positive about high-risk HPV in their home-based sample." However, the release does not tell them that there were fewer than 10 people in this group, or how much it can be extrapolated to a larger population. In short, when writing about a diagnostic tool, it is important to focus on sensitivity and specificity.

Does news release make disease prevention?


HPV – specifically HPV strains – can significantly increase the risk of cervical cancer. There is no doubt about it. However, not all women who are exposed to HPV will receive cervical cancer. There is no doubt about that. In fact, the CDC notes that 80 percent of women are exposed to HPV until they have 50, but the National Cancer Institute estimates that less than one percent of women live with cervical cancer. It may be difficult to emphasize the importance of HPV screening without creating a "disease-free" area. This release goes through the line, but it does not cross.

Total score: 8 out of 10 satisfactory

Source link