ArticleDer Pathologe2013
[Self-collection of test material. Supplement to cervical cancer screening].
Article in Der Pathologe, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRecent studies have reported high sensitivity of human papillomavirus (HPV) testing from self-collected vaginal specimens. These results suggest the possibility of introducing self-collection of samples for cervical cancer screening to increase overall participation. The current study compared test results from self-collected and physician-collected specimens. PATIENTS AND
methodsVaginal samples from patients (n = 102) of a colposcopy clinic were taken by both a physician and themselves. All cell samples were tested using cytological diagnostics with a PAP test and for carcinogenic HPV genotypes (Cervista®). Additionally, all patients had a colposcopy (86% with cervical biopsy) and in 40% of patients was carried out a conisation.
resultsOf the patients tested 50 had the histological diagnosis of a cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 (CIN 2+ or 3). Sensitivity of HPV self-collected samples was much lower than that of physician-collected samples (72 % compared to 92 %). The sensitivity of self-collected PAP tests was only 52 % but the positive predictive value of self-collected PAP tests was very high. The cytological diagnosis of high-grade intraepithelial lesion (HSIL) correlated much better with the histological results of conisation (96 %) than with cervical biopsies (76 %).
conclusionThe results of this study indicate that self-collection may not provide an adequate collection method for improving efficiency in cervical cancer screening in Germany.
Indexed as
Identifiers
24051606What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.