| Table 3: Characteristics of tests available for diagnosing HPV infection |
| Test | Sensitivity/specificity
| Advantages | Disadvantages
|
| Visual inspection [20] | Low/high | Easy to perform, rapid |
Identifies only visible proliferative lesions; cannot type HPV |
| Papanicolaou testing [1,52] | Low/high | Inexpensive |
Low sensitivity; cannot type HPV |
| Colposcopy or cervicography [53,54] | Moderate/low | More sensitive than Papanicolaou testing |
Low specificity; cannot type HPV |
| Group-specific antigen [53,55,56] | Moderate/low | More sensitive than Papanicolaou testing |
Cannot type HPV |
| In-situ DNA hybridization [53,55,56] | Moderate/high | Can localize HPV DNA in tissue; good sensitivity and specificity; can type HPV |
Time and labour intensive |
| Dot blot technique [53,55,56] | Moderate/high | Easy to perform, rapid, relatively inexpensive; can type HPV |
Relatively less sensitive; cannot localize HPV in tissue |
| Southern blot technique [53,55,56] | High/high | High sensitivity and specificity; good ability to distinguish HPV types |
Labour intensive, expensive, requires expertise; cannot localize HPV DNA in tissue |
| PCR [54,56] | High/high | Extremely high sensitivity; uses fresh or fixed tissue samples; can type HPV |
Risk of false-positive results; extreme care needed in handling specimens |