Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30623069›Full record

ArticleHealth science reports2018

Self-collected Pap smears may provide an acceptable and effective method of cervical cancer screening.

Amita A Singla, Paul Komesaroff

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health science reports, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
–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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. 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

2 authors.

Amita A SinglaDepartment of Gynaecology The Queen Elizabeth Hospital Adelaide Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-3542-1692
Paul KomesaroffMonash University Melbourne Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND

aimsThe role of the Papanicolou (Pap) smear in the early detection and prevention of cervical cancer is well established. However, many women fail to undertake the test because of embarrassment or other reasons. To address this problem, we evaluated the feasibility of implementing self-sampling of cervical cytology as an alternative to clinician-collected Pap smears and compared it with the gold standard of colposcopy in terms of specificity. MATERIALS AND

methodsA prospective preliminary study of 40 women recruited from the colposcopy clinic of a tertiary referral hospital was undertaken. Participants were instructed in the technique of self-sampling and asked to collect their own Pap smears. Colposcopic examinations were performed and biopsies taken, if indicated. Clinician-collected Pap smears were performed 4 weeks later. Pairwise agreement was calculated between the outcomes of self-collected, colposcopic, and clinician-collected samples using the weighted κ statistic.

resultsSelf-collected Pap smear had a high level of acceptability among the women, all of whom were able to collect adequate tissue. The agreement of self-collected Pap smears with colposcopic assessment was no worse than that of clinician-collected Pap smears (Cohen's κ statistic 0.54 [95% CI, 0.27-0.82]; cf 0.49 [0.2-0.78], respectively). The specificity of self-collected Pap smears was almost identical to that of clinician-collected samples (specificity: 86% vs 81%, respectively). Direct comparison between patient and clinician collected Pap smears showed fair agreement (κ statistic 0.38 [0.07-0.68]). There were no adverse events in either group.

conclusionsSelf-collection of Pap smears is an effective and acceptable alternative to clinician-collected samples and may provide a strategy for improving compliance with cervical testing programs.

Indexed as

cervical cancercolposcopyPap smearscreeningself‐collected test

Identifiers

PMID30623069
PMCPMC6266357

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.