Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25247320›Full record

Trial reportBritish journal of cancer2014

Vaginal self-sampling is a cost-effective way to increase participation in a cervical cancer screening programme: a randomised trial.

K Haguenoer, S Sengchanh, C Gaudy-Graffin, J Boyard, R Fontenay, H Marret, A Goudeau, N Pigneaux de Laroche, E Rusch, B Giraudeau

Registry-linked trialAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in British journal of cancer, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04093388 (Self-Collection of the Pap Smear as Agency), which is not on this map. Cited by 69 papers, 11 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
69citing papers in PubMed, 11 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

NCT04093388 narecruitingnot on this mapstarted 2021, after this paper: background citation

Self-Collection of the Pap Smear as Agency: A Novel Way to Improve Refractory Low Cervical Cancer Screening Rates in Rural Alabama

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of Alabama at BirminghamRan2021 to 2027Enrolled250ConditionsCervical CancerArmsSelf-PAP, Traditional Pap smear
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

69 citing papers in PubMed, 11 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. A systematic review of the cost-effectiveness of interventions to increase cervical cancer screening among underserved women in Europe.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2024
    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. Trial
  18. A Randomized Comparison of Different Vaginal Self-sampling Devices and Urine for Human Papillomavirus Testing-Predictors 5.1.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2021
    Trial
  19. Trial
  20. Trial

9 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

10 authors.

K Haguenoer1] INSERM, U1153, Paris, France [2] Cancer Screening Department, CHRU de Tours, Tours 37000, France.
S SengchanhCancer Screening Department, CHRU de Tours, Tours 37000, France.
C Gaudy-Graffin1] Department of Bacteriology and Virology, CHRU de Tours, Tours 37000, France [2] Université François-Rabelais de Tours, PRES Centre-Val de Loire Université, Tours 37000, France [3] INSERM U966, Tours 37000, France.
J BoyardCancer Screening Department, CHRU de Tours, Tours 37000, France.
R FontenayMedico-Economic Evaluation Unit, CHRU de Tours, Tours 37000, France.
H Marret1] Université François-Rabelais de Tours, PRES Centre-Val de Loire Université, Tours 37000, France [2] Department of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, CHRU de Tours, Tours 37000, France.
A Goudeau1] Department of Bacteriology and Virology, CHRU de Tours, Tours 37000, France [2] Université François-Rabelais de Tours, PRES Centre-Val de Loire Université, Tours 37000, France [3] INSERM U966, Tours 37000, France.
N Pigneaux de LarocheVirology Laboratory, Inter-Regional Health Institute, Tours 37000, France.
E Rusch1] Université François-Rabelais de Tours, PRES Centre-Val de Loire Université, Tours 37000, France [2] Medico-Economic Evaluation Unit, CHRU de Tours, Tours 37000, France [3] Université François-Rabelais, Équipe émergente de recherche Éducation, Éthique, Santé, Tours, France.
B Giraudeau1] INSERM, U1153, Paris, France [2] Université François-Rabelais de Tours, PRES Centre-Val de Loire Université, Tours 37000, France [3] CHRU de Tours, INSERM CIC1415, Tours 37000, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCervical cancer screening coverage remains insufficient in most countries. Our objective was to assess whether in-home vaginal self-sampling with a dry swab for high-risk human papillomavirus (HR-HPV) testing is effective and cost-effective in increasing participation in cervical cancer screening.

methodsIn March 2012, 6000 unscreened women aged 30-65 years, living in a French region covered by a screening programme, who had not responded to an initial invitation to have a Pap smear were equally randomised to three groups: 'no intervention'; 'recall', women received a letter to have a Pap smear; and 'self-sampling', women received a self-sampling kit to return to a centralised virology laboratory for PCR-based HPV testing.

resultsParticipation was higher in the 'self-sampling' than in the 'no intervention' group (22.5% vs 9.9%, P<0.0001; OR 2.64) and 'recall' group (11.7%, P<0.0001; OR 2.20). In the 'self-sampling' group, 320 used the self-sampling kit; for 44 of these women with positive HR-HPV test results, 40 had the recommended triage Pap smear. The ICER per extra screened woman was 77.8[euro ] and 63.2[euro ] for the 'recall' and 'self-sampling' groups, respectively, relative to the 'no intervention' group.

conclusionsOffering an in-home, return-mail kit for vaginal self-sampling with a dry swab is more effective and cost-effective than a recall letter in increasing participation in cervical cancer screening.

Indexed as

Patient ParticipationAdultAgedCost-Benefit AnalysisEarly Detection of CancerFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansMiddle AgedReagent Kits, DiagnosticUterine Cervical NeoplasmsVaginal SmearsReagent Kits, Diagnostic

Identifiers

PMID25247320
PMCPMC4260034

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
Read underepoch 390

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.