RESUMEN
PapType human papillomavirus (HPV) assay was compared to Hybrid Capture 2 (HC2), Amplicor (Amp), and Linear Array (LA) HPV tests in 894 women undergoing management for a high-grade Pap smear abnormality. The sensitivity in detection of underlying high-grade histological diagnosis by PapType was 90.3% and by HC2 was 79.8%, while by Amp and LA it was 92.4% and 91.6%, respectively. The specificities were 52.5%, 55.3%, 49.4%, and 51.7% for PapType, HC2, Amp, and LA, respectively.
Asunto(s)
Cuello del Útero/patología , Cuello del Útero/virología , Técnicas de Diagnóstico Molecular/métodos , Prueba de Papanicolaou , Papillomaviridae/aislamiento & purificación , Infecciones por Papillomavirus/diagnóstico , Frotis Vaginal , Virología/métodos , Femenino , Humanos , Papillomaviridae/clasificación , Papillomaviridae/genética , Infecciones por Papillomavirus/virología , Sensibilidad y EspecificidadRESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: To perform a preliminary usability evaluation of a novel, compact pneumatic compression device in patients with lymphoedema. METHODS: This open-label, single-arm trial had two phases: the first focused on the fitting of the pneumatic compression device (Aria FreeTM, Aria Health, San Diego CA, USA) and the second focused on evaluating the comfort of the entire system during a 45-min usage period. Both phases were conducted in a monitored clinical environment. Patients aged ≥18 years with a diagnosis of lower limb lymphoedema who had used a pneumatic compression device for ≥3 months were eligible. Patients rated subjective fit, comfort and usability on an 11-point Likert scale (where higher scores indicate better fit/comfort/usability). The truncated cone method was used to infer limb volume before and after therapy in phase 2. RESULTS: Twenty-four patients were screened, and 15 were enrolled (80% female; mean age 62 years); all completed both study phases. Patients rated the garment as easy to set up and fit (median score 6.5), and all reported that the therapy was comfortable (median score 10; p < 0.001 vs. reference score of 6). There was a 1.85% reduction in limb volume after device use for 45 min (p = 0.018 vs. before therapy). No safety issues were identified. CONCLUSIONS: The new pneumatic compression device fitted well, was easy to use and reduced leg oedema.