Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21343937›Full record

Trial reportBritish journal of cancer2011

HPV self-sampling as an alternative strategy in non-attenders for cervical screening - a randomised controlled trial.

A Szarewski, L Cadman, D Mesher, J Austin, L Ashdown-Barr, R Edwards, D Lyons, J Walker, J Christison, A Frater and 1 more

Open access · hybridAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in British journal of cancer, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 85 papers, 11 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
85citing papers in PubMed, 11 pooled it
10.6field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

85 citing papers in PubMed, 11 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 177 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. 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
  18. Trial
  19. Trial
  20. Trial

25 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

A SzarewskiCancer Research UK Centre for Epidemiology, Mathematics and Statistics, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, Charterhouse Square, London EC1M 6BQ, UK. a.szarewski@qmul.ac.uk
L Cadman
D Mesher
J Austin
L Ashdown-Barr
R Edwards
D Lyons
J Walker
J Christison
A Frater
J Waller
Cancer Research UK · GBUniversity of Westminster · GBQueen Mary University of London · GBSt Mary's Hospital · GBUniversity College London · GB

Funding

Department of Health PB-PG-0407-13358
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundA randomised trial to ascertain whether women who do not attend for cervical screening are more likely to respond to the opportunity to collect a self-sample for human papillomavirus (HPV) testing, or to a further invitation to attend for cervical screening.

methodsThe study was carried out in a Primary Care Trust (PCT) in London between June 2009 and December 2009. In total, 3000 women were randomly selected from persistent non-responders (i.e., who had not responded to at least two invitations to attend for screening). The women were randomised on a 1 : 1 basis to either receive an HPV self-sampling kit or a further invitation to attend for cervical cytology. The main outcome measures were (1) percentage of women attending for cervical cytology compared with those returning a self-sample HPV test or attending for cytology subsequent to receiving the kit and (2) percentage of those testing positive for HPV who attended further investigation.

resultsThe total response in the self-sampling group for screening was 10.2%. Of the 1500 women in the control group sent a further invitation for cervical screening, 4.5% attended for cytology screening. This difference is highly statistically significant (P<0.0001). Of the 8 women who tested positive for HPV, 7 attended for a cervical smear and had a concurrent colposcopy. Three of these (43%) had high-grade disease (defined as CIN 2+), with one found to have an invasive cancer (stage 1b) and one CIN 3.

conclusionsThe value of this intervention relies on the detection of high-grade CIN and early stage cancer with a good prognosis. The relatively high yield of abnormalities found is consistent with that expected among a hard to reach and relatively high-risk group of women. Our study suggests that self-sampling could increase participation among non-responders in England, but further work is needed to ascertain whether the low response rate seen here is likely to be representative of the rest of the country. Other studies are needed to investigate the response to self-sampling in different demographic and geographic settings.

Indexed as

Patient ComplianceAdultAgedAlgorithmsAlphapapillomavirusFemaleHumansMass ScreeningMiddle AgedPapillomavirus InfectionsPatient ParticipationPatient SatisfactionSelf CareUterine Cervical DysplasiaUterine Cervical NeoplasmsVaginal Smears

Identifiers

PMID21343937
PMCPMC3065284
OpenAlexW2057323348

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.