Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30627330›Full record

ArticleMalawi medical journal : the journal of Medical Association of Malawi2018

Feasibility, validity and acceptability of self-collected samples for human papillomavirus (HPV) testing in rural Malawi.

Allahna Esber, Alison Norris, Enock Jumbe, Jonathan Kandodo, Patrick Nampandeni, Patricia Carr Reese, Abigail Norris Turner

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Malawi medical journal : the journal of Medical Association of Malawi, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 22% 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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 33 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
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

7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Allahna EsberDivision of Epidemiology, The Ohio State University, Columbus, USA.
Alison NorrisDivision of Epidemiology, The Ohio State University, Columbus, USA.
Enock JumbeChild Legacy International, Umoyo wa Thanzi Research, Lilongwe Malawi.
Jonathan KandodoChild Legacy International, Umoyo wa Thanzi Research, Lilongwe Malawi.
Patrick NampandeniChild Legacy International, Umoyo wa Thanzi Research, Lilongwe Malawi.
Patricia Carr ReeseSchool of Medicine, The George Washington University, Washington, DC, USA.
Abigail Norris TurnerDivision of Infectious Diseases, Department of Internal Medicine, The Ohio State University, Columbus, USA.
The Ohio State University · US

Funding

Institute for Population ResearchP2CHD058484 · NICHD · OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY · PI HAYFORD, SARAH R · 2014 to 2023
$5.0M
The Ohio State University Center for Clinical and Translational ScienceTL1TR001069 · NCATS · OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY · PI JACKSON, REBECCA D · 2013 to 2017
$763k
NCATS NIH HHS TL1 TR001069NICHD NIH HHS P2C HD058484
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Aim: The World Health Organization (WHO) recently endorsed human papillomavirus (HPV) testing as a cervical cancer screening method in countries without established programs. Self-collection for HPV testing may be an effective way to expand screening. Our objective was to assess the feasibility, validity, and acceptability of self-collection for HPV testing in a population of care-seeking, unscreened women in rural Malawi. Methods: We enrolled women reporting to a rural Malawian clinic from January to August 2015. Participants were offered the option to self-collect a vaginal sample and the study clinician collected a cervical sample for HPV testing. Using the clinician-collected sample as the reference standard, we calculated a kappa statistic, sensitivity, and specificity by hr-HPV type. Participants also received a brief survey assessing acceptability of the procedure. Results: Among the 199 enrolled women, 22% had any high risk-HPV. Comparing self- and clinician-collected samples for HPV testing, we found generally high agreement (ϰ = 0.66-0.90) and high specificity (98%-100%), but varied sensitivity (50%-91%) for different types of hr-HPV. We also found that self-collection was acceptable, with 98% of women reporting it was easy to do and 99% reporting willingness to do so again. Conclusions: WHO guidelines recommend that treatment is available immediately after a positive screening test for clinic-based cervical cancer screening programs. Our findings demonstrate that self-collection of samples for HPV testing is a feasible and acceptable method of cervical cancer screening in this rural Malawian population. High agreement between the self- and clinician-collected samples and high levels of acceptability among women in the study suggest that self-collection of vaginal samples for HPV testing may be effectively incorporated into screening programs among rural, largely unscreened populations.

Indexed as

Mass ScreeningPapillomaviridaePapillomavirus InfectionsRural PopulationSpecimen HandlingUterine Cervical NeoplasmsVaginal SmearsAdultEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHumansMalawiMedical Laboratory PersonnelPatient Acceptance of Health CareReproducibility of ResultsSensitivity and Specificity

Identifiers

PMID30627330
PMCPMC6307066
OpenAlexW2811866380

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.