Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28950841›Full record

ArticleBMC women's health2017

Self-collected vaginal sampling for the detection of genital human papillomavirus (HPV) using careHPV among Ghanaian women.

Dorcas Obiri-Yeboah, Yaw Adu-Sarkodie, Florencia Djigma, Anna Hayfron-Benjamin, Latif Abdul, Jacques Simpore, Philippe Mayaud

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC women's health, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 45 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
45citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
4.7field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

45 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 72 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  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

7 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.

Dorcas Obiri-YeboahDepartment of Microbiology and Immunology, School of Medical Sciences, University of Cape Coast, Cape Coast, Ghana. d.obiri-yeboah@uccsms.edu.gh.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4562-9294
Yaw Adu-SarkodieDepartment of Clinical Microbiology, School of Medical Sciences, Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology, Kumasi, Ghana.
Florencia DjigmaLaboratory of Molecular Biology and Genetics (LABIOGENE), University of Ouagadougou, Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso.
Anna Hayfron-BenjaminDepartment of Maternal and Child Health, School of Nursing, University of Cape Coast, Cape Coast, Ghana.
Latif AbdulDepartment of Microbiology and Immunology, School of Medical Sciences, University of Cape Coast, Cape Coast, Ghana.
Jacques SimporeLaboratory of Molecular Biology and Genetics (LABIOGENE), University of Ouagadougou, Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso.
Philippe MayaudDepartment of Clinical Research, Faculty of Infectious and Tropical Diseases, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
University of Cape Coast · GHUniversité Joseph Ki-Zerbo · BFKwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology · GHLondon School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDetection of genital HPV DNA is recommended as an important strategy for modern cervical cancer screening. Challenges include access to services, the reliance on cervical samples taken by clinicians, and patient's preference regarding provider gender. The objective of this research was to determine the acceptability, feasibility and performance of alternative self-collected vaginal samples for HPV detection among Ghanaian women.

methodsA comparative frequency-matched study was conducted in a systematic (1:5) sample of women attending HIV and outpatient clinics in the Cape Coast Teaching Hospital, Ghana. Participants were instructed on self-collection (SC) of vaginal samples using the careHPV brush and a clinician-collected (CC) cervical sample was obtained using a similar brush. Paired specimens were tested for HPV DNA (14 high-risk types) by careHPV assay (Qiagen) and by HPV genotyping (Anyplex II, Seegene).

resultsOverall, 194 women of mean age 44.1 years (SD ± 11.3) were enrolled and 191 paired SC and CC results were analysed. The overall HPV detection concordance was 94.2% (95%CI: 89.9-97.1), Kappa value of 0.88 (p < 0.0001), showing excellent agreement. This agreement was similar between HIV positive (93.8%) and negative (94.7%) women. Sensitivity and specificity of SC compared to CC were 92.6% (95%CI: 85.3-97.0) and 95.9% (95%CI: 89.8-98.8) respectively. The highest sensitivity was among HIV positive women (95.7%, 95%CI: 88.0-99.1) and highest specificity among HIV negative women (98.6%, 95%CI: 92.4-100). Overall, 76.3% women found SC very easy/easy to obtain, 57.7% preferred SC to CC and 61.9% felt SC would increase their likelihood to access cervical cancer screening.

conclusionsThe feasibility, acceptability and performance of SC using careHPV support the use of this alternative form of HPV screening among Ghanaian women. This could be a potential new affordable strategy to improve uptake of the national cervical cancer screening program.

Indexed as

AdultAgedDNA, ViralEarly Detection of CancerFemaleGhanaHumansMiddle AgedPapillomaviridaePapillomavirus InfectionsSelf CareSensitivity and SpecificitySexually Transmitted DiseasesSpecimen HandlingUterine Cervical NeoplasmsVaginal SmearsDNA, ViralcareHPVCervical cancerClinician-collectionGhanaHuman papillomavirus (HPV)Self-collection

Identifiers

PMID28950841
PMCPMC5615631
OpenAlexW2759991857

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.