Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26332236›Full record

ArticlePloS one2015

Acceptability and Accuracy of Cervical Cancer Screening Using a Self-Collected Tampon for HPV Messenger-RNA Testing among HIV-Infected Women in South Africa.

Paul C Adamson, Megan J Huchko, Alison M Moss, Hans F Kinkel, Andrew Medina-Marino

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2015. 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
3.3field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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, 54 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Article
  7. Knowledge, Attitudes, and Behaviors Regarding HPV Vaccination and Self-Sampling Among US Young Adults.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2026
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. A Comprehensive Review of Cervical Cancer Screening Devices: The Pros and the Cons.Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP · 2023
    Review
  19. Review
  20. Article
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

5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Paul C AdamsonSchool of Medicine, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California, United States of America; Research Unit, Foundation for Professional Development, Pretoria, Gauteng, South Africa.
Megan J HuchkoDepartment of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences, School of Medicine, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California, United States of America.
Alison M MossDrs. Martin and Partners, Edenvale, Gauteng, South Africa.
Hans F KinkelResearch Unit, Foundation for Professional Development, Pretoria, Gauteng, South Africa; Department of Family Medicine, University of Pretoria, Pretoria, Gauteng, South Africa.
Andrew Medina-MarinoResearch Unit, Foundation for Professional Development, Pretoria, Gauteng, South Africa; School of Health Systems and Public Health, University of Pretoria, Pretoria, Gauteng, South Africa.
Foundation for Professional Development · ZAUniversity of California, San Francisco · USUniversity of Pretoria · ZA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHIV increases women's risk for high-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) infection and invasive cervical cancer. South Africa has a high HIV prevalence but low cervical cancer screening coverage. Self-collection of cervical specimens and hrHPV testing, including hrHPV messenger-RNA (mRNA) testing, are methods aimed at increasing screening rates. However, data are limited on the acceptability and accuracy of tampon-based self-collection for hrHPV mRNA testing in HIV-infected women.

methodsWe recruited 325 HIV-infected women seeking care at a government HIV clinic in Pretoria, South Africa. A clinician performed a pelvic examination and obtained an endocervical specimen. Study participants performed self-collection using a tampon. Both clinician- and self-collected specimens were tested for hrHPV mRNA. Acceptability of both collection methods was assessed, the prevalence of hrHPV mRNA in our study population was estimated, test positivity of the two collection methods were compared, and test agreement was assessed by calculating the κ-statistic, sensitivity, and specificity.

resultsOver 90% of women reported no difficulties self-collecting specimens and 82% were willing to perform the tampon-collection at home. Based on clinician-collection specimens, the prevalence of hrHPV mRNA in our study population was 36.7% (95% CI: 31.4%- 42.0%). There was no difference in test positivity between clinician-collection, 36.7%, and tampon-collection, 43.5% (p-value = 0.08). Using clinician-collection as the reference test, the sensitivity and specificity for hrHPV mRNA of tampon-collection were 77.4% (95% CI: 69.8-85.0%) and 77.8% (95% CI: 71.9-83.6%), respectively.

conclusionsTampon-based self-collection is acceptable to women and has similar hrHPV mRNA positivity rates as clinician-collection, but has reduced sensitivity and specificity compared to clinician-collection. The hrHPV mRNA prevalence in our study population is high, but similar to other high-risk populations, and highlights the need for improved cervical cancer screening. Further research into the optimal use of tampon-based collection as a cervical cancer screening tool is warranted.

Indexed as

Menstrual Hygiene ProductsPatient Acceptance of Health CareAdultAlphapapillomavirusFemaleHIV InfectionsHumansMass ScreeningMiddle AgedRNA, MessengerRNA, ViralSelf CareSouth AfricaRNA, MessengerRNA, Viral

Identifiers

PMID26332236
PMCPMC4557833
OpenAlexW1831183671

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.