Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30216191›Full record

Trial reportRadiology and oncology2018

Randomised trial of HPV self-sampling among non-attenders in the Slovenian cervical screening programme ZORA: comparing three different screening approaches.

Urska Ivanus, Tine Jerman, Alenka Repse Fokter, Iztok Takac, Veronika Kloboves Prevodnik, Mateja Marcec, Ursula Salobir Gajsek, Maja Pakiz, Jakob Koren, Simona Hutter Celik and 10 more

Abstract readComparative StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Radiology and oncology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Methodological Errors in Clinical Studies Published by Medical Journals of Ex-Yugoslav Countries.Acta informatica medica : AIM : journal of the Society for Medical Informatics of Bosnia & Herzegovina : casopis Drustva za medicinsku informatiku BiH · 2020
    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

20 authors.

Urska IvanusNational Cervical Cancer Screening Programme and Registry ZORA, Epidemiology and Cancer Registry, Institute of Oncology Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia.
Tine JermanNational Cervical Cancer Screening Programme and Registry ZORA, Epidemiology and Cancer Registry, Institute of Oncology Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia.
Alenka Repse FokterDepartment of Pathology and Cytology, Celje General Hospital, Celje, Slovenia.
Iztok TakacUniversity Department of Gynaecology and Perinatology, University Medical Centre Maribor, Maribor, Slovenia.
Veronika Kloboves PrevodnikDepartment of Cytopathology, Institute of Oncology Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia.
Mateja MarcecUniversity Department of Gynaecology and Perinatology, University Medical Centre Maribor, Maribor, Slovenia.
Ursula Salobir GajsekDepartment of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, General Hospital Celje, Celje, Slovenia.
Maja PakizUniversity Department of Gynaecology and Perinatology, University Medical Centre Maribor, Maribor, Slovenia.
Jakob KorenDepartment of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, General Hospital Celje, Celje, Slovenia.
Simona Hutter CelikDepartment of Pathology, University Medical Centre Maribor, Maribor, Slovenia.
Kristina Gornik KrambergerDepartment of Pathology, University Medical Centre Maribor, Maribor, Slovenia.
Ulrika KlopcicDepartment of Cytopathology, Institute of Oncology Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia.
Rajko KavalarDepartment of Pathology, University Medical Centre Maribor, Maribor, Slovenia.
Simona Sramek ZatlerDepartment of Pathology and Cytology, Celje General Hospital, Celje, Slovenia.
Biljana Grcar KuzmanovDepartment of Pathology, Institute of Oncology Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia.
Mojca FlorjancicNational Cervical Cancer Screening Programme and Registry ZORA, Epidemiology and Cancer Registry, Institute of Oncology Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia.
Natasa NoldeDepartment of Cytopathology, Institute of Oncology Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia.
Srdjan NovakovicDepartment of Molecular Diagnostics, Institute of Oncology Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia.
Mario PoljakInstitute of Microbiology and Immunology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia.
Maja Primic ZakeljNational Cervical Cancer Screening Programme and Registry ZORA, Epidemiology and Cancer Registry, Institute of Oncology Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background To overcome obstacles within the Slovenian organised cervical cancer screening programme, a randomised pilot study of human papillomavirus (HPV) self-sampling among non-attenders was performed, aiming to assess three different screening approaches. Participants and methods Non-attenders aged 30-64 years from two Slovenian regions were randomised to two HPV self-sampling groups-the opt-in (I1, n = 14.400) and the opt-out (I2, n = 9.556), with a control group (P, n = 2.600). Self-collected samples were analysed using the Hybrid Capture 2 assay. HPV-positive women were invited to a colposcopy. The overall and type-specific intention-to-screen response rates and histological outcomes with a positive predictive value (PPV) according to the women's age, the screening approach, the level of protection resulting from previous screening history, and the region of residence were assessed. Results Of the 26.556 women enrolled, 8.972 (33.8%) responded with self-sample for HPV testing and/or traditional cytology within one year of enrolment. Response rates were 37.7%, 34.0% and 18.4% (p < 0.050) for opt-out, opt-in and control groups. Cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN)2+ was diagnosed in 3.9/1.000, 3.4/1.000, and 3.1/1.000 women (p > 0.050), respectively. PPV of the HPV self-sampling was 12.0% and 9.6% for CIN2+ and CIN3+. The highest PPV was obtained in non-attenders in screening programme for more than 10-years and concordant results of HPV testing with 40.8% for CIN2+ and 38.8% for CIN3+. Conclusions The results of our study show that a high response to HPV self-sampling can be achieved also in an opt-in approach, if women are encouraged to choose between self-sampling at home and screening with gynaecologist. In addition, clinically important risk difference for a high-grade cervical lesion exists in the case of a positive result of HPV testing on self-collected samples, depending on the length of the interval since last screening. Stratified management of these women should be strongly considered. Women who were not screened with cytology for at least 10 years should be referred to immediate colposcopy for histology verification instead to delayed re-testing.

Indexed as

AdultEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHumansMass ScreeningMiddle AgedPapillomavirus InfectionsPatient CompliancePilot ProjectsRegistriesSelf CareSloveniaSpecimen HandlingUterine Cervical Neoplasmscervical cancercytologyHPVnon-attendersscreening programmeself-sampling

Identifiers

PMID30216191
PMCPMC6287183

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.