Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25633037›Full record

Trial reportBritish journal of cancer2015

Self-sampling to increase participation in cervical cancer screening: an RCT comparing home mailing, distribution in pharmacies, and recall letter.

P Giorgi Rossi, C Fortunato, P Barbarino, S Boveri, S Caroli, A Del Mistro, A Ferro, C Giammaria, M Manfredi, T Moretto and 6 more

Open access · hybridAbstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in British journal of cancer, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 62 papers, 10 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
62citing papers in PubMed, 10 pooled it
7.9field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

62 citing papers in PubMed, 10 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 111 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Early cancer diagnosis and community pharmacies: a systematic review.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2026
    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. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Trial
  19. Trial
  20. Article

2 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

16 authors at 10 institutions in 1 country.

P Giorgi Rossi1] Servizio Interaziendale di Epidemiologia, Azienda Unità Sanitaria Locale, via Amendola 2, Reggio Emilia 42122, Italy [2] IRCCS-Arcispedale S. Maria Nuova, 42122 Reggio Emilia, Italy.
C FortunatoDepartment of Life, Health and Environmental Sciences, University of L'Aquila, Viale San Salvatore, Edificio Delta 6, 67100 L'Aquila, Italy.
P BarbarinoUOC Screening e prevenzione ASL Roma G, 00019 Tivoli (Rome), Italy.
S BoveriPreventive Gynaecology Unit, European Institute of Oncology, 20141 Milano, Italy.
S Caroli1] Servizio Interaziendale di Epidemiologia, Azienda Unità Sanitaria Locale, via Amendola 2, Reggio Emilia 42122, Italy [2] IRCCS-Arcispedale S. Maria Nuova, 42122 Reggio Emilia, Italy.
A Del MistroIstituto Oncologico Veneto IOV-IRCCS, 35128 Padova, Italy.
A FerroDipartimento di Prevenzione Azienda ULSS 17, 35042 Este-Monselice (PD), Italy.
C GiammariaUOC Ginecologia e Ostetricia, Screening Oncologici Regionali Ospedale Cardarelli, 86100 Campobasso (CB), Italy.
M ManfrediProgramma Screening Oncologici AUSL di Bologna, 40068 San Lazzaro di Savena (BO), Italy.
T MorettoDipartimento di Prevenzione Azienda ULSS 7 Pieve di Soligo - Conegliano, 31053 Pieve di Soligo (TV), Italy.
A PasquiniProgramma Screening Oncologici AUSL di Bologna, 40068 San Lazzaro di Savena (BO), Italy.
M SideriPreventive Gynaecology Unit, European Institute of Oncology, 20141 Milano, Italy.
M C TufiUOC Screening e prevenzione ASL Roma G, 00019 Tivoli (Rome), Italy.
C CogoRegistro tumori del Veneto, 35131 Padova, Italy.
E AltobelliDepartment of Life, Health and Environmental Sciences, University of L'Aquila, Viale San Salvatore, Edificio Delta 6, 67100 L'Aquila, Italy.
HPV Self-sampling Italian Working Group
University of L'Aquila · ITAzienda Sanitaria Unità Locale di Reggio Emilia · ITEuropean Institute of Oncology · ITOspedale Antonio Cardarelli · ITASL Roma · ITAULSS 2 Marca Trevigiana · ITAzienda del Consorzio Trasporti Veneziano (Italy) · ITAzienda Sanitaria Locale Roma 3 · ITIstituto per lo Studio e la Prevenzione Oncologica · ITUniversity of Bologna · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWe performed a multicentre randomised controlled trial to evaluate the effect on participation in organised screening programmes of a self-sampling device mailed home or picked up at a pharmacy compared with the standard recall letter.

methodsWomen aged 30-64 non-responding to screening invitation were eligible. Response rate to first invitation ranged from 30% to 60% between centres. The control was the standard reminder letter to undergo the test used by the programme (Pap test in three centres and HPV DNA test in three other centres). Home mailing of the self-sampler was preceded by a letter with a leaflet about HPV. The analysis was intention-to-treat.

resultsIn all, 14 041 women were randomised and recruited: 5012 in the control arm, 4516 to receive the self-sampler at home, and 4513 to pick up the self-sampler at a pharmacy. Participation was 11.9% in the control, 21.6% (relative participation: 1.75; 95% CI 1.60-1.93) in home, and 12.0% (relative participation: 0.96; 95% CI 0.86-1.07) in the pharmacy arms, respectively. The heterogeneity between centres was high (excess heterogeneity of that expected due to chance, i.e., I(2), 94.9% and 94.1% for home and pharmacy arm, respectively). The estimated impact on the overall coverage was +4.3% for home mail self-sampling compared with +2.2% for standard reminder.

conclusionsHome mailing of self-sampler proved to be an effective way to increase participation in screening programmes, even in those with HPV as primary testing. Picking up at pharmacies showed effects varying from centre to centre.

Indexed as

Patient ParticipationPharmaciesPostal ServiceSelf CareAdultCorrespondence as TopicData CollectionEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHumansItalyMiddle AgedSpecimen HandlingUterine Cervical NeoplasmsVaginal Smears

Identifiers

PMID25633037
PMCPMC4333501
OpenAlexW2017554996

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.