Evidence map›Paper›PMID 12037026›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical pathology2002

Primary screening for high risk HPV by home obtained cervicovaginal lavage is an alternative screening tool for unscreened women.

M A E Nobbenhuis, T J M Helmerhorst, A J C van den Brule, L Rozendaal, L H Jaspars, F J Voorhorst, R H M Verheijen, C J L M Meijer

Open access · greenAbstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical pathology, 2002. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
36citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
3.8field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

36 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 119 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Non-speculum sampling approaches for cervical screening in older women: randomised controlled trial.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2022
    Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Article
  12. A Comprehensive Review of Cervical Cancer Screening Devices: The Pros and the Cons.Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP · 2023
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Accurate measurement of female genital tract fluid dilution in cervicovaginal lavage samples.Journal of chromatography. B, Analytical technologies in the biomedical and life sciences · 2016
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

M A E NobbenhuisDepartment of Pathology, VU University Medical Centre, PO Box 7057, 1007 MB, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
T J M Helmerhorst
A J C van den Brule
L Rozendaal
L H Jaspars
F J Voorhorst
R H M Verheijen
C J L M Meijer
Amsterdam UMC Location VUmc · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND/

aimsSelf sampling is considered an adjuvant tool to facilitate the participation of women in cervical cancer screening programmes. This study aimed to evaluate whether cervicovaginal lavage could be an alternative for the cervical smear in cytology and human papillomavirus (HPV) testing and to assess the acceptance of the self sampling device by women.

methodsFifty six women with abnormal cervical cytology (very mild dyskaryosis or worse) and 15 women with normal cervical cytology obtained a self collected cervicovaginal lavage at home and filled in a questionnaire on the use of the device. At the colposcopy clinic the gynaecologist performed the same procedure followed by a cervical smear for cytology and HPV DNA testing.

resultsThe self sampling device was acceptable to 88% of the women. The concordance between the cytology results in the smear and the lavage by the doctor and the patient was 54% and 41%, respectively (kappa = 0.28 and 0.14). The concordance between high risk HPV detection in the smear and the lavage by the doctor and the patient was 93% and 78%, respectively (kappa = 0.82 and 0.53). Ninety one per cent of the women with high grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) had a high risk HPV positive test in the smear, compared with 91% and 81% in the lavages taken by the doctor and the patient, respectively.

conclusionsHPV DNA testing by home obtained samples is useful as a screening tool for cervical cancer, whereas cervical cytology by self sampling is not. Although the sensitivity for high grade CIN by high risk HPV testing in the lavage by the patient is not significantly lower than that in the cervical smear, self sampling for HPV DNA is a feasible alternative method in women who decline to participate in population based cervical cancer screening programmes. However, participation in the screening programme remains the best option.

Indexed as

AdultFemaleHumansMass ScreeningMiddle AgedPapillomaviridaePapillomavirus InfectionsPatient SatisfactionSelf CareSpecimen HandlingSurveys and QuestionnairesTherapeutic IrrigationTumor Virus InfectionsUterine Cervical DysplasiaUterine Cervical NeoplasmsVaginal Smears

Identifiers

PMID12037026
PMCPMC1769675
OpenAlexW2097563497

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 OpenQuestion graph.