Open Access
Open Peer Review

This article has Open Peer Review reports available.

How does Open Peer Review work?

Erratum to: Prevalence, concordance and determinants of human papillomavirus infection among heterosexual partners in a rural region in central Mexico

  • Rocio Parada1,
  • Rosalba Morales2,
  • Anna R Giuliano3,
  • Aurelio Cruz1,
  • Xavier Castellsague4 and
  • Eduardo Lazcano-Ponce1Email author
BMC Infectious Diseases201111:25

DOI: 10.1186/1471-2334-11-25

Received: 3 January 2011

Accepted: 26 January 2011

Published: 26 January 2011

The original article was published in BMC Infectious Diseases 2010 10:223

Following the publication of this paper[1] we received some important observations on the statistical proof used and the way the results were presented in the tables and figure. We have taken them into account and are responding to the same.

For the comparison of the prevalence of HPV infection in men and women, we used the MacNemar test. This test is used to prove a hypothesis of equality of proportions in non-independent groups. In this case the groups of men and women are not independent because they are sexual partners. Table 1 shows that the prevalence of HPV is greater in men than in women (20.4% vs 13.7%, p value = 0.0009). There were no statistically significant differences between type specific infection in men and women; only in types HPV31, HPV53, HPV55, HPV61 and HPV84 (Table 1 and Figure 1).
Table 1

Prevalence of HPV DNA in 504 heterosexual couples in central Mexico, according to sex

 

Men

n = 504

Women

n = 504

   

HPV

n

%

n

%

OR*

CI 95%*

ρ*

Presence of HPV

       

Positive

103

20.4

69

13.7

0.51

(0.33-0.77)

0.0009

Presence of high-risk HPV

       

Positive

44

8.7

48

9.5

1.14

(0.67-2.00)

0.6056

Presence of low-risk HPV

       

Positive

75

14.9

33

6.5

0.27

(0.15-0.49)

0.0000

Multiple HPV infection

       

One type only

79

15.7

50

9.9

   

Two or more types

24

4.8

19

3.8

0.74

(0.34-1.55)

0.3841

Presence of HPV 16 and/or 18

       

Negative

491

97.4

490

97.2

   

Positive

13

2.6

14

2.8

1.09

(0.44-2.72)

0.8348

Positive for

       

High-risk HPV

       

16

6

1.2

10

2

1.80

(0.54-6.83)

0.2850

18

7

1.4

4

0.8

0.50

(0.08-2.34)

0.3173

31

1

0.2

5

1

  

0.0455

33

0

0

0

0

   

35

0

0

0

0

   

39

7

1.4

3

0.6

0.20

(0.01-1.78)

0.1025

45

2

0.4

1

0.2

0.50

(0.01-9.60)

0.5637

51

2

0.4

3

0.6

1.50

(0.17-17.96)

0.6547

52

3

0.6

5

1

2.00

(0.29-22.10)

0.4142

56

2

0.4

1

0.2

0.00

(0.00-39.00)

0.3173

58

3

0.6

5

1

2.00

(0.29-22.10)

0.4142

59

12

2.4

15

3

1.37

(0.50-3.93)

0.4913

66

6

1.2

3

0.6

0.40

(0.04-2.44)

0.2568

For low-risk HPV

       

6

2

0.4

2

0.4

1.00

(0.01-78.40)

1.0000

11

0

0

0

0

   

26

0

0

0

0

   

40

2

0.4

2

0.4

1.00

(0.07-13.70)

1.0000

42

2

0.4

2

0.4

1.00

(0.07-13.70)

1.0000

53

10

2

2

0.4

0.11

(0.01-0.80)

0.0114

54

5

1

4

0.8

0.66

(0.05-5.81)

0.6547

55

4

0.8

0

0

0.00

(0.00-1.51)

0.0450

61

14

2.8

2

0.4

0.07

(0.01-0.51)

0.0013

62

11

2.2

7

1.4

0.43

(0.07-1.87)

0.2059

64

0

0

0

0

   

67

0

0

0

0

   

68

2

0.4

1

0.2

0.50

(0.01-9.60)

0.5637

69

0

0

1

0.2

  

0.3173

70

1

0.2

0

0

0.00

(0.00-39.00)

0.3171

71

3

0.6

5

1

2.00

(0.29-22.10)

0.4142

72

4

0.8

1

0.2

0.25

(0.01-2.52)

0.1797

73

2

0.4

2

0.4

1.00

(0.07-13.79)

1.0000

81

7

1.4

4

0.8

0.50

(0.08-2.34)

0.3173

82

0

0

0

0

   

83

1

0.2

2

0.4

2.00

(0.10-117.90)

0.5637

84

9

1.8

1

0.2

0.00

(0.00-0.58)

0.0047

IS39

0

0

0

0

   

Cp6108

5

1

3

0.6

0.50

(0.05-3.48)

0.4142

* OR, CI95% and p-value obtained using McNemar's Test.

https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1186%2F1471-2334-11-25/MediaObjects/12879_2011_Article_1736_Fig1_HTML.jpg
Figure 1

Type specific prevalence of HPV infection in a group of heterosexual couples in central Mexico, according to sex

The analysis of known risk factors for HPV infection was carried out separately for men and women. Non-conditional logistic regression was performed. When stratifying by sex we do not need to consider the condition of sexual partners. This part of the analysis was performed in this way, as it allows us to include explanatory variables in men - variables that cannot be defined in women, such as circumcision, use of condoms, and some specific characteristics on sexual risk behaviors. In women it allows us to consider, in addition to characteristics of their own sexual behaviors, characteristics of their male partner's sexual behavior - circumcision, use of condoms, etc. (Table 2). The last section of the study focuses on assessing the risk of HPV infection in women, considering the presence of HPV infection in their sex partners as an explanatory variable. Thus we find that women whose sexual partners are HPV positive have 5.15 times greater risk of HPV, compared to those whose partners are HPV negative (CI 95% 3.01, 8.82). Indeed, what matters to us in this part is proving that the variable "presence of HPV in male partner" be associated with the presence of HPV in the female. We do not seek to compare the risk of HPV infection between men and women (Table 3).
Table 2

Sociodemographic and sexual conduct characteristics associated with the presence of HPV DNA among 504 heterosexual couples in central Mexico, according to sex

 

Men

n = 504a

Women

n = 504a

Variable

 

HPV +

n = 103

Risk of HPV

infection

 

HPV +

n = 69

Risk of HPV

infection

 

n (%)

HPV + (%)

ORb

CI 95%

n (%)

HPV + (%)

ORb

CI 95%

Age c (years)

        

18-24

40(8.0)

9(22.5)

1.00

 

64(12.7)

13(20.3)

1.00

 

25-30

91(18.0)

17(18.7)

 

(0.31-1.93)

98(19.4)

15(15.3)

 

(0.30-1.60)

31-40

191(37.9)

29(15.2)

0.77 0.61

(0.26-1.42)

209(41.5)

24(11.5)

0.70 0.47

(0.22-1.00)

41-75

182(36.1)

48(26.4)

1.23

(0.54-2.80)

133(26.4)

17(12.8)

0.55

(0.24-1.23)

p-trend

   

0.1999

   

0.1305

Place of residence

        

Rural

350(69.4)

62(17.7)

1.00

 

350(69.4)

47(13.4)

1.00

 

Urban

154(30.6)

41(26.6)

1.71

(1.08-2.71)

154(30.6)

22(14.3)

1.02

(0.58-1.79)

Marital Status

        

Married

400(79.4)

72(18.0)

1.00

 

400(79.4)

43(10.7)

1.00

 

Single

104(20.6)

31(29.8)

1.92

(1.14-3.25)

104(20.6)

26(25.0)

2.79

(1.56-5.00)

Schooling d

        

< = 6 years

174(34.5)

47(27.0)

1.85

(0.99-3.44)

77(15.5)

8(10.4)

0.70

(0.28-1.76)

7-9 years

199(39.5)

37(18.6)

1.28

 

286(57.6)

43(15.0)

1.17

(0.62-2.19)

> = 10 years

131(26.0)

19(14.5)

1.00

(0.70-2.36)

134(26.9)

17(12.7)

1.00

 

p-trend

   

0.0061

   

0.8069

Religion

        

Catholic

430(85.3)

81(18.8)

1.00

 

430(85.3)

58(13.5)

1.00

 

Other

74(14.7)

22(29.7)

1.88

(1.07-3.31)

74(14.7)

11(14.9)

1.04

(0.51-2.11)

Current smoker

        

No

278(55.2)

56(20.1)

1.00

 

435(86.3)

53(12.2)

1.00

 

Yes

226(44.8)

47(20.8)

1.08

(0.69-1.69)

69(13.7)

16(23.2)

1.97

(1.03-3.75)

Age on initiating sexual life

        

≤18 years

284(56.3)

68(23.9)

1.59

(1.00-2.52)

269(53.4)

39(14.5)

1.06

(0.62-1.81)

≥19 years

220(43.7)

35(15.9)

1.00

 

235(46.6)

30(12.8)

1.00

 

No. of lifetime sexual partners

        

One

185(36.7)

30(16.2)

1.00

 

371(73.6)

45(12.1)

1.00

 

Two

76(15.1)

17(22.4)

 

(0.75-2.92)

88(17.5)

15(17.1)

 

(0.78-2.85)

Three to nine

171(33.9)

31(18.1)

1.49

(0.62-1.90)

45(8.9)

9(20.0)

1.50

(0.75-3.79)

Ten or more

72(14.3)

25(34.7)

1.08

(1.34-4.82)

--

--

1.69

--

   

2.54

   

--

 

P-trend

   

0.0142

   

0.0796

History of anal sexual relations

        

No

305(63.1)

64(20.9)

1.00

 

146(67.0)

25(17.1)

1.00

 

Yes

178(36.9)

34(19.1)

0.90

(0.56-1.45)

72(33.0)

8(11.1)

0.65

(0.26-1.60)

Circumcision e

        

No

469(93.0)

98(20.9)

1.00

 

469(93.0)

61(13.0)

1.00

 

Yes

35(7.0)

5(14.3)

0.61

(0.22-1.64)

35(7.0)

8(22.9)

1.92

(0.82-4.51)

History of sexual relations with prostitutes

        

No

395(78.4)

72(18.2)

1.00

 

--

--

--

 

Yes

109(21.6)

31(28.4)

1.68

(1.01-2.78)

--

--

--

--

Use of condom when having sexual relations with prostitutes

        

Have not had sexual relations with prostitutes

395(78.4)

72(18.2)

1.00

 

--

--

--

 

Always

34(6.7)

8(23.5)

1.46

(0.63-3.41)

--

--

--

--

Not always

75(14.9)

23(30.7)

1.78

(1.00-3.17)

--

--

--

--

P-trend

   

0.0128

    

aDue to missing data, all categories do not total 504.

bOdds ratio and 95% confidence intervals obtained using logistic regression models adjusted for age and SLI.

cModels adjusted for SLI only to avoid colinearity.

dModels adjusted for age only to avoid colinearity when adjusting for SLI.

eThis variable as was asked of men only. Women were assigned the value corresponding to the antecedent of circumcision in their male sexual partner.

Table 3

Risk of HPV infection associated with the status of HPV infection in the sexual partner

Variable

Risk of HPV infection in women

Presence of HPV

in men

n = 504

HPV positives

n = 69%

ORa

ρa

CI 95%a

Presence of HPV

     

Negative

401/79.6

8.7(35)

   

Positive

103/20.4

33.0(34)

5.15

0.000

3.01 - 8.82

Presence of oncogenic HPV

     

Negative

460

6.9(32)

   

Positive

44

36.4(16)

7.64

0.000

3.75 - 15.56

Presence of nononcogenic HPV

     

Negative

429

3.7(16)

   

Positive

75

22.7(17)

7.56

0.000

3.62 - 15.79

Presence of HPV

     

16 and/or 18

     

Negative

491

2.4(12)

   

Positive

13

15.4(2)

7.25

0.016

1.44 - 36.37

aOdds ratio, p-value, and CI 95% obtained using logistic regression.

We are thankful for your observations and deeply regret the confusion in the results presented.

Notes

Declarations

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Centro de Investigación en Salud Poblacional, Instituto Nacional de Salud Pública
(2)
Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social
(3)
H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute
(4)
Cancer Epidemiology Research Program, Institut Català d'Oncologia (ICO), IDIBELL, CIBER-ESP

References

  1. Parada R, Morales R, Giuliano AR, Cruz A, Castellsagué X, Lazcano-Ponce E: Prevalence, concordance and determinants of human papillomavirus infection among heterosexual partners in a rural region in central Mexico. BMC Infect Dis. 2010, 10: 223-10.1186/1471-2334-10-223.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  2. Pre-publication history

    1. The pre-publication history for this paper can be accessed here:http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2334/11/25/prepub

Copyright

© Parada et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2011

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Advertisement