Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29686981›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in public health2018

Self-Sampling for Human Papillomavirus Testing: Increased Cervical Cancer Screening Participation and Incorporation in International Screening Programs.

Sarah Gupta, Christina Palmer, Elisabeth M Bik, Juan P Cardenas, Harold Nuñez, Laurens Kraal, Sara W Bird, Jennie Bowers, Alison Smith, Nathaniel A Walton and 5 more

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in public health, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 105 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
105citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
8.9field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

105 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 152 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Female allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant survivors' perspectives on cervical cancer screening: a retrospective study.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026
    Observational
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

45 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

15 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Sarah GuptauBiome, San Francisco, CA, United States.
Christina PalmeruBiome, San Francisco, CA, United States.
Elisabeth M BikuBiome, San Francisco, CA, United States.
Juan P CardenasuBiome, San Francisco, CA, United States.
Harold NuñezuBiome, San Francisco, CA, United States.
Laurens KraaluBiome, San Francisco, CA, United States.
Sara W BirduBiome, San Francisco, CA, United States.
Jennie BowersuBiome, San Francisco, CA, United States.
Alison SmithuBiome, San Francisco, CA, United States.
Nathaniel A WaltonuBiome, San Francisco, CA, United States.
Audrey D GoddarduBiome, San Francisco, CA, United States.
Daniel E AlmonaciduBiome, San Francisco, CA, United States.
Susan ZneimeruBiome, San Francisco, CA, United States.
Jessica RichmanuBiome, San Francisco, CA, United States.
Zachary S ApteuBiome, San Francisco, CA, United States.
University of California, San Francisco · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In most industrialized countries, screening programs for cervical cancer have shifted from cytology (Pap smear or ThinPrep) alone on clinician-obtained samples to the addition of screening for human papillomavirus (HPV), its main causative agent. For HPV testing, self-sampling instead of clinician-sampling has proven to be equally accurate, in particular for assays that use nucleic acid amplification techniques. In addition, HPV testing of self-collected samples in combination with a follow-up Pap smear in case of a positive result is more effective in detecting precancerous lesions than a Pap smear alone. Self-sampling for HPV testing has already been adopted by some countries, while others have started trials to evaluate its incorporation into national cervical cancer screening programs. Self-sampling may result in more individuals willing to participate in cervical cancer screening, because it removes many of the barriers that prevent women, especially those in low socioeconomic and minority populations, from participating in regular screening programs. Several studies have shown that the majority of women who have been underscreened but who tested HPV-positive in a self-obtained sample will visit a clinic for follow-up diagnosis and management. In addition, a self-collected sample can also be used for vaginal microbiome analysis, which can provide additional information about HPV infection persistence as well as vaginal health in general.

Indexed as

cancer screeningcervical cancerhuman papillomavirusself-samplingvaginal microbiome

Identifiers

PMID29686981
PMCPMC5900042
OpenAlexW2797978971

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.