Trial reportPloS one2017
Accuracy of self-collected vaginal dry swabs using the Xpert human papillomavirus assay.
Trial report in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Detecting cervical precancer and reaching underscreened women by using HPV testing on self samples: updated meta-analyses.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2018Pooled it
- Clinical Validation of a Vaginal Cervical Cancer Screening Self-Collection Method for At-Home Use: A Nonrandomized Clinical Trial.JAMA network open · 2025Trial
- Feasibility and acceptability of HPV testing using GeneXpert for cervical cancer screening in Morocco.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Self-collection for primary HPV screening using dry swabs: a review of clinical performance, laboratory considerations, and patient preferences.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2026Review
- High-risk human papillomavirus prevalence and factors associated with testing positive in women living in Montserrat.PLOS global public health · 2026Article
- Improving the Sensitivity-Specificity Balance of Human Papillomavirus Testing on Self- and Clinician-Collected Samples in South Africa.JCO global oncology · 2025Article
- A Model for Empowering Rural Solutions for Cervical Cancer Prevention (He Tapu Te Whare Tangata): Protocol for a Cluster Randomized Crossover Trial.JMIR research protocols · 2023Article
- Toward 70% cervical cancer screening coverage: Technical challenges and opportunities to increase access to human papillomavirus (HPV) testing.PLOS global public health · 2023Review
- A novel cervical cancer screen-triage-treat demonstration project with HPV self-testing and thermal ablation for women in Malawi: Protocol for a single-arm prospective trial.Contemporary clinical trials communications · 2022Article
- HPV self-sampling in the follow-up of women after treatment of cervical intra-epithelial neoplasia: A prospective study in a high-income country.Preventive medicine reports · 2021Article
- Implementing community-based human papillomavirus self-sampling with SMS text follow-up for cervical cancer screening in rural, southwestern Uganda.Journal of global health · 2021Article
- Performance of Xpert HPV on Self-collected Vaginal Samples for Cervical Cancer Screening Among Women in South Africa.Journal of lower genital tract disease · 2021Article
- Cervico-vaginal self-collection in HIV-infected and uninfected women from Tapajós region, Amazon, Brazil: High acceptability, hrHPV diversity and risk factors.Gynecologic oncology · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPolymerase chain reaction-based Xpert human papillomavirus (HPV) assay is a rapid test that detects high-risk HPV (hrHPV) infection. This point-of-care test is usually performed by collecting a cervical specimen in a vial of PreservCyt® transport medium. We compared HPV test positivity and accuracy between self-collected sample with a dry swab (s-DRY) versus physician-collected cervical sampling using a broom like brush and immediate immersion in PreservCyt (dr-WET).
methodsIn this cross-sectional study, we recruited 150 women ≥ 18 years old attending the colposcopy clinic in the University Hospital of Geneva. Each participant first self-collected a vaginal sample using a dry swab and then the physician collected a cervical specimen in PreservCyt. HPV analysis was performed with Xpert. Part of the PreservCyt-collected sample was used for hrHPV detection with the cobas® HPV test. HPV test positivity and performance of the two collection methods was compared.
resultsHPV positivity was 49.1% for s-DRY, 41.8% for dr-WET and 46.2% for cobas. Good agreement was found between s-DRY and dr-WET samples (kappa±Standard error (SE) = 0.64±0.09,), particularly for low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (LSIL+) (kappa±SE = 0.80±0.17). Excellent agreement was found between the two samples for HPV16 detection in general (kappa±SE = 0.91±0.09) and among LSIL+ lesions (kappa±SE = 1.00±0.17). Sensitivities and specificities were, respectively, 84.2% and 47.1%(s-DRY), 73.1% and 58.7%. (dr-WET) and 77.8% and 45.7% (cobas) for CIN2+ detection. The median delay between sampling and HPV analysis was 7 days for the Xpert HPV assay and 19 days for cobas. There were 36 (24.0%) invalid results among s-DRY samples and 4 (2.7%) among dr-WET (p = 0.001). Invalid results happened due to the long interval between collection and analysis.
conclusionSelf-collected vaginal dry swabs are a valid alternative to collecting cervical samples in PreservCyt solution for HPV testing with the Xpert HPV assay. IMPACT: HPV self-collection with dry cotton swabs might assist in the implementation of an effective screening strategy in developing countries.
trial registrationInternational Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number Registry ISRCTN83050913.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.