Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29692637›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of women's health2018

Self- versus physician-collected samples for the follow-up of human papillomavirus-positive women in sub-Saharan Africa.

Manuela Viviano, Phuong Lien Tran, Bruno Kenfack, Rosa Catarino, Mohamed Akaaboune, Liliane Temogne, Eveline Tincho Foguem, Pierre Vassilakos, Patrick Petignat

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of women's health, 2018. 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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 20% 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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Observational
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

9 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Manuela Viviano *Gynecology Division, Geneva University Hospitals, Geneva, Switzerland.
Phuong Lien Tran *Gynecology Division, Geneva University Hospitals, Geneva, Switzerland.
Bruno KenfackDepartment of Biomedical Sciences, University of Dschang, Dschang, Cameroon.
Rosa CatarinoGynecology Division, Geneva University Hospitals, Geneva, Switzerland.
Mohamed AkaabouneGynecology Division, Geneva University Hospitals, Geneva, Switzerland.
Liliane TemogneDepartment of Biomedical Sciences, University of Dschang, Dschang, Cameroon.
Eveline Tincho FoguemDepartment of Biomedical Sciences, University of Dschang, Dschang, Cameroon.
Pierre VassilakosGeneva Foundation for Medical Education and Research, Geneva, Switzerland.
Patrick PetignatGynecology Division, Geneva University Hospitals, Geneva, Switzerland.
University Hospital of Geneva · CHUniversité de Dschang · CMFoundation for laboratory medicine · CH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionHuman papillomavirus (HPV) testing is a suitable tool for primary cervical cancer (CC) screening and follow-up in low-resource settings. Vaginal samples taken by women themselves (Self-HPV) are an interesting alternative to physician-performed sampling (Dr-HPV). Our aim was to assess the performance of Self-HPV and Dr-HPV at 6 and 12 months following a CC screening campaign.

methodsThis study was carried out at the Dschang District Hospital, Cameroon. Women aged 30-49 years were recruited in a CC screening campaign. HPV-positive women, of whom 2/3 were treated with thermoablation because of abnormal results at baseline screening, were invited to participate in a follow-up study. Self- and Dr-HPV, as well as cytology, were performed at 6 and 12 months. HPV samples were analyzed using the Xpert HPV assay. Sensitivity and specificity for the detection of low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion or worse and of high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion or worse were calculated for Self-HPV and Dr-HPV, using cytology as the reference diagnosis.

resultsOverall, 188 HPV-positive women were invited to attend follow-up. The obtained follow-up visits' attendance was 154 (81.9%) and 131 (69.7%) at 6 and 12 months, respectively. While the overall performance of Dr-HPV at 6 months was slightly superior, Self-HPV showed an improved sensitivity for HSIL+ detection at 12 months when compared with Dr-HPV (83.3% [95% CI 41.8-98.9] versus 71.4% [95% CI 21.5-95.8], respectively). The overall HPV positivity agreement between Self- and Dr-HPV at 6 and 12 months corresponded to a

conclusionSelf-HPV is a valuable tool for the follow-up of HPV-positive women in low-resource settings. Larger, randomized trials are needed to confirm the validity of our findings.

Indexed as

cervical cancerfollow-uphuman papillomavirus testingscreeningself-sampling

Identifiers

PMID29692637
PMCPMC5903477
OpenAlexW2798050013

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.