Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27073929›Full record

Trial reportPloS one2016

Self-Sampling for Human Papillomavirus Testing among Non-Attenders Increases Attendance to the Norwegian Cervical Cancer Screening Programme.

Espen Enerly, Jesper Bonde, Kristina Schee, Helle Pedersen, Stefan Lönnberg, Mari Nygård

Abstract readClinical TrialMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Trial report in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 58 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
58citing papers in PubMed, 8 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.

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

58 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  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. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  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

6 authors.

Espen EnerlyDepartment of Research, Cancer Registry of Norway, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
Jesper BondeDepartment of Pathology, Copenhagen University Hospital Hvidovre, Hvidovre, Denmark.
Kristina ScheeDepartment of Research, Cancer Registry of Norway, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
Helle PedersenDepartment of Pathology, Copenhagen University Hospital Hvidovre, Hvidovre, Denmark.
Stefan LönnbergCervical Cancer Screening Programme, Cancer Registry of Norway, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
Mari NygårdDepartment of Research, Cancer Registry of Norway, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Increasing attendance to screening offers the best potential for improving the effectiveness of well-established cervical cancer screening programs. Self-sampling at home for human papillomavirus (HPV) testing as an alternative to a clinical sampling can be a useful policy to increase attendance. To determine whether self-sampling improves screening attendance for women who do not regularly attend the Norwegian Cervical Cancer Screening Programme (NCCSP), 800 women aged 25-69 years in the Oslo area who were due to receive a 2nd reminder to attend regular screening were randomly selected and invited to be part of the intervention group. Women in this group received one of two self-sampling devices, Evalyn Brush or Delphi Screener. To attend screening, women in the intervention group had the option of using the self-sampling device (self-sampling subgroup) or visiting their physician for a cervical smear. Self-sampled specimens were split and analyzed for the presence of high-risk (hr) HPV by the CLART® HPV2 test and the digene® Hybrid Capture (HC)2 test. The control group consisted of 2593 women who received a 2nd reminder letter according to the current guidelines of the NCCSP. The attendance rates were 33.4% in the intervention group and 23.2% in the control group, with similar attendance rates for both self-sampling devices. Women in the self-sampling subgroup responded favorably to both self-sampling devices and cited not remembering receiving a call for screening as the most dominant reason for previous non-attendance. Thirty-two of 34 (94.1%) hrHPV-positive women in the self-sampling subgroup attended follow-up. In conclusion, self-sampling increased attendance rates and was feasible and well received. This study lends further support to the proposal that self-sampling may be a valuable alternative for increasing cervical cancer screening coverage in Norway.

Indexed as

Mass ScreeningNational Health ProgramsPapillomaviridaeSelf CareAdultAgedFemaleHumansMiddle AgedNorwayUterine Cervical Neoplasms

Identifiers

PMID27073929
PMCPMC4830596

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.