ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology2025
Comparison of urine and semen samples for HPV detection: a cross-sectional study in fertility clinic patients.
Article in Journal of clinical microbiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Urine sample for HPV detection in men: is it a valid and non-invasive diagnostic alternative?Microbiology spectrum · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Human papillomavirus (HPV) is a prevalent sexually transmitted infection linked to genital warts and various cancers. While effective screening methods exist for women, detecting HPV in men remains challenging due to asymptomatic infections and the lack of standardized, non-invasive diagnostic tools. This study aimed to assess the correlation between HPV DNA detection in urine and semen samples from men attending a fertility clinic in Ecuador. This cross-sectional study included 106 sexually active male patients referred for semen analysis at the Fertility Unit of Hospital del Río, Cuenca, Ecuador, between June 2024 and March 2025. Each participant provided paired semen and urine samples, which were analyzed for HPV genotyping. Sociodemographic and behavioral data were also collected. HPV DNA was detected in 15% of semen samples and 9.4% of urine samples. Both low- and high-risk genotypes were identified in semen and urine. In semen samples, high-risk HPV was detected in 9.4% and low-risk HPV in 5.7%. In urine, high-risk HPV was detected in 8.5% and low-risk HPV in 0.9% of samples. Among high-risk genotypes, HPV 58 was the most frequent in urine (20%), while HPV 81 was the most frequent in semen (19%). Genotypes such as HPV 16, 18, 39, 52, and 66 were detected exclusively in semen. Compared with semen sampling, urine sampling showed a sensitivity of 37.5% and a specificity of 95%. Agreement between the two sample types was fair (kappa = 0.39). Although urine sampling offers a non-invasive option, its limited sensitivity restricts its utility as an HPV detection method in asymptomatic men. Semen analysis provides higher detection rates and may be more reliable for HPV screening in male fertility populations. IMPORTANCE: This study addresses a critical knowledge gap regarding human papillomavirus (HPV) detection in men, a topic insufficiently covered in current control and prevention strategies. While screening and vaccination efforts in women have advanced considerably, the absence of standardized, well-accepted, and non-invasive methods for HPV detection in men limits the recognition of their roles as reservoirs and transmitters in the HPV transmission pathway. Evaluating alternative solutions for HPV testing, such as urine and semen sampling, not only contributes valuable scientific knowledge to improve detection in this population but also establishes the foundation for public health policies on male HPV testing. Ultimately, this work supports the goal of reducing global HPV prevalence and its associated diseases.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.