the analytic study isn't too helpful since it's meaningless as far as clinical utility
the other one i'm afraid is sort of alarming in that the third wave test had an extremely low ascus hpv+ rate (way lower than seen in ALTS) and very little clinical correlation (only histology that was "available")...seems to echo the issues third wave is having completing their trial ... on the one hand, it could mean that they truly do have a test with far far better specificity, which is a bit hard to believe given the relative similarities of analytic performance, or that they are missing disease...since sensitivity, not specificity, is paramount (specificity is certainly important but sensitivity trumps) it will be interesting to see once there is published peer reviewed clinical data....
will say though that to be fair, i don't think that abstract has enough data to really draw any meaningful conclusion about either test...kinda lame
Incas thankyou for the courtesy of articulating your thoughts.I agree that there is no conclusive data there.Will await the Invader data due out any day and then as you've pointed out in the past...more importantly,will be follow on clinical practice data in the years to come. I'd note that the Digene/TWTI infringement trial is scheduled sometime this month in Federal Court up here. The PR link you provided certainly underscores the valuable educational work Qiagen is doing.I agree that the time has come for ACS/ACOG to standardize diagnostic guidelines.HPV testing is imperative.