Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29208043›Full record

ArticleBMC research notes2017

Self-sampling for human papillomavirus testing among rural young women of KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa.

J N Mbatha, H N Galappaththi-Arachchige, A Mtshali, M Taylor, P D Ndhlovu, E F Kjetland, M F D Baay, Z L Mkhize-Kwitshana

Erratum issuedOpen access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMC research notes, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 18 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 27% 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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 22 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 5 institutions in 4 countries.

J N MbathaSchool Laboratory Medicine and Medical Science, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban, South Africa. nonhlanhlam@dut.ac.za.
H N Galappaththi-ArachchigeNorwegian Centre for Imported and Tropical Diseases, Department of Infectious Diseases, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
A MtshaliSchool Laboratory Medicine and Medical Science, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban, South Africa.
M TaylorDiscipline of Public Health, Nelson R Mandela School of Medicine, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban, South Africa.
P D NdhlovuClaybrook Center, Imperial College London, London, UK.
E F KjetlandNorwegian Centre for Imported and Tropical Diseases, Department of Infectious Diseases, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
M F D BaayNorwegian Centre for Imported and Tropical Diseases, Department of Infectious Diseases, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
Z L Mkhize-KwitshanaSchool Laboratory Medicine and Medical Science, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban, South Africa.
Oslo University Hospital · NOUniversity of KwaZulu-Natal · ZADurban University of Technology · ZAImperial College London · GBMangosuthu University of Technology · ZA

Funding

The European Research Council under the European Union's Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013) /ERC Grant agreement no. PIRSES-GA-2010-269245 PIRSES-GA-2010-269245
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCervical cancer is a major problem in women and it is important to find a suitable and acceptable screening method, especially among young in low-resource areas for future human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine follow-up investigations. The study sought to test the acceptability of self-sampling as well as the suitability of the specimen collecting devices.

methodsNinety-eight young women from rural KwaZulu-Natal were enrolled between March and July 2014. Collected genital specimens were transferred to colour indicator cards for HPV detection. Participants answered a questionnaire where they described their experiences with self-sampling. Samples were tested for high-risk HPV using GP5/6+ PCR.

resultsOf the enrolled participants, 91 answered questionnaires and indicated that self-sampling was preferred by 51/91 (56%) women while 40/91 (44%) indicated preference for sampling by a doctor (p = 0.023). The majority, 64% were comfortable using a swab, 22% preferred a brush while 11% were comfortable with both devices. Of the 98 self-sampled specimens 61 were negative for HPV in both specimens while 37 were HPV-positive in either brush or swab. Of the 37, 26 (70%) were HPV-positive in both brush and swab (kappa = 0.743) and 11 (30%) were discordant.

conclusionsSelf-sampling was acceptable to the majority of participants in this rural area. The Dacron swab was the preferred device, and can be used in combination with colour indicator cards for comfortable self-sampling, easy storage and transport of specimens plus detection.

Indexed as

Rural PopulationSelf CareAdolescentAdultCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansPapillomaviridaeSouth AfricaSurveys and QuestionnairesYoung AdultCervico-vaginal lavageHuman papillomavirusSelf-collected samplesSelf-sampling devices

Identifiers

PMID29208043
PMCPMC5717820
OpenAlexW2774380378

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.