ArticleInternational journal of women's health2018
A comparison of cotton and flocked swabs for vaginal self-sample collection.
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 12 papers.
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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 25 citations in OpenAlex.
- Self-collection for primary HPV screening using dry swabs: a review of clinical performance, laboratory considerations, and patient preferences.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2026Review
- A Systematic Review of Bacterial Sampling Collection for Veterinary Microbiology in Companion Animals.Veterinary sciences · 2026Review
- Detection and quantification ofThe veterinary quarterly · 2024Article
- Comparison of nylon-flocked swabs and cotton swabs in the detection of human papillomavirus infection in men.International urology and nephrology · 2024Article
- Point-of-care isothermal nucleic acid amplification tests: progress and bottlenecks for extraction-free sample collection and preparation.Expert review of molecular diagnostics · 2024Review
- Article
- Evaluation of self-sampling-based cervical cancer screening strategy using HPV Selfy CE-IVD test coupled with home-collection kit: a clinical study in Italy.European journal of medical research · 2023Article
- A Comprehensive Review of Cervical Cancer Screening Devices: The Pros and the Cons.Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP · 2023Review
- A prospective cost-benefit analysis for nylon 4N6FLOQSwabs®: example of the process and potential benefits.International journal of legal medicine · 2022Article
- Understanding and utilizing textile-based electrostatic flocking for biomedical applications.Applied physics reviews · 2021Review
- Comparison of swab types for collection and analysis of microorganisms.MicrobiologyOpen · 2021Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveVaginal self-sampling for human papillomavirus (HPV) testing has recently been proposed to optimize cervical cancer screening coverage. The objective of this study was to compare the performance of self-taken samples using flocked and cotton swabs for HPV detection and cellular retrieval.
methodsWe recruited women aged 21-65 years, referred to colposcopy at the Division of Gynecology of the Geneva University Hospitals between May and September 2016. Each participant collected 2 vaginal samples: 1 with a cotton swab and 1 with a flocked swab. A 1:1 randomization determined the order in which the 2 samples were taken. The swabs were introduced into a 20 mL PreservCyt
resultsA total of 119 participants were recruited in the study. Their mean ± standard deviation age was 35.1±8.9 years. The HPV prevalence was 29.7% and 38.1% according to the cotton and flocked swab, respectively (
conclusionThe flocked swab achieved a greater cellular retrieval and showed an improved performance in HPV detection. Further studies are needed to assess the usability and cost-effectiveness of the 2 self-sampling devices.
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.