Comparative analysis of diagnostic methods for high-risk HPV detection: A scoping review and meta-analysis
Rahmi Amtha , Monica Dwi Hartanti , Nadira Putri Fedin , Indrayadi Gunardi , Christopher Andrew Teguh , Ilham Hizbulloh , Muhammad Ihsan Rizal , Yani Kurniawan , Didik Tulus Subekti , Christina Safira Whinie Lestari
Eurasian Journal of Medicine and Oncology ›› 2026, Vol. 10 ›› Issue (2) : 025380407
Introduction: High-risk (HR) human papillomavirus (HPV) is the main cause of cervical cancer and a substantial proportion of oropharyngeal cancers, making early and accurate detection critical for effective screening and prevention, particularly in low-resource settings
Objective: This study aims to compare the diagnostic accuracy of point-of-care and rapid testing methods for HR-HPV detection.
Methods: We conducted a scoping review and meta-analysis in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews framework. PubMed/MEDLINE, ScienceDirect, and Scopus were searched for English-language studies published from 2010 through July 2025. Fifteen studies met the inclusion criteria, with eight included in the meta-analysis.
Results: Recombinase polymerase amplification combined with clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats/Cas12a achieved the highest pooled diagnostic performance, with a sensitivity of 0.94 and specificity of 0.97. Polymerase chain reaction-based analyses also showed high accuracy (sensitivity = 0.85; specificity = 0.97) but exhibited considerable heterogeneity across platforms and sample types. Loop-mediated isothermal amplification demonstrated moderate performance (sensitivity = 0.60; specificity = 0.91), while p16 immunohistochemistry offered good sensitivity (0.91) but lower specificity (0.73), supporting its use as a confirmatory rather than primary screening tool. In situ hybridization and next-generation sequencing provided broader genotyping capability but were limited by higher cost and technical complexity.
Conclusion: Polymerase chain reaction remains the clinical gold standard for HR-HPV detection, whereas recombinase polymerase amplification/clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats–Cas12a emerges as a promising alternative for decentralized, low-resource screening. Future multi-center studies should standardize reporting, expand genotype coverage beyond HPV-16 and HPV-18, and assess cost, turnaround time, and operational feasibility to ensure that advances in
Diagnostic / Human papillomavirus / Point of care / Rapid diagnostic
| [1] |
|
| [2] |
|
| [3] |
|
| [4] |
|
| [5] |
|
| [6] |
|
| [7] |
|
| [8] |
|
| [9] |
|
| [10] |
|
| [11] |
|
| [12] |
|
| [13] |
|
| [14] |
|
| [15] |
|
| [16] |
|
| [17] |
|
| [18] |
|
| [19] |
|
| [20] |
|
| [21] |
|
| [22] |
|
| [23] |
|
| [24] |
|
| [25] |
|
| [26] |
|
| [27] |
|
| [28] |
|
| [29] |
|
| [30] |
|
| [31] |
|
/
| 〈 |
|
〉 |