Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31328458›Full record

ArticleJournal of gynecologic oncology2019

Evaluation of satisfaction with three different cervical cancer screening modalities: clinician-collected Pap test vs. HPV test by self-sampling vs. HPV test by urine sampling.

Hye Young Shin, Bomyee Lee, Sang Hyun Hwang, Dong Ock Lee, Na Young Sung, Jae Young Park, Jae Kwan Jun

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of gynecologic oncology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed, 5 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

31 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Guideline
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. A review of urinary HPV testing for cervical cancer management and HPV vaccine surveillance: rationale, strategies, and limitations.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2024
    Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

7 authors.

Hye Young ShinNational Cancer Control Institute, National Cancer Center, Goyang, Korea.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5353-8897
Bomyee LeeDepartment of Medical Education and Medical Humanities, Graduate School, Kyung Hee University, Seoul, Korea.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2676-002X
Sang Hyun HwangDepartment of Laboratory Medicine, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3201-5728
Dong Ock LeeCenter for Uterine Cancer, National Cancer Center Hospital, National Cancer Center, Goyang, Korea.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9009-3508
Na Young SungNational Cancer Control Institute, National Cancer Center, Goyang, Korea.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1942-3981
Jae Young ParkNational Cancer Control Institute, National Cancer Center, Goyang, Korea.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0066-1012
Jae Kwan JunNational Cancer Control Institute, National Cancer Center, Goyang, Korea.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1647-0675

Funding

Ministry of Health and Welfare HI14C3411National Cancer Center 1610402
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveHuman papillomavirus testing by self-sampling and urine sampling might be alternatives to Papanicolaou test (Pap test) for cervical cancer screening (CCS), and may increase compliance and adherence thereto. The present study aimed to explore satisfaction and preferences for cervical screening modalities among Korean women.

methodsIn total, 732 women aged between 20 and 69 years responded to a questionnaire designed to survey the women's perceived satisfaction for the 3 CCS modalities: clinician-collected Pap test, self-collected vaginal sampling (self-sampling) and urine sampling.

resultsOverall satisfaction was significantly higher with both the self-sampling and urine sampling than the clinician-collected Pap test (odds ratio [OR]=2.01; 95% confidence interval [CI]=1.48-3.00 and OR=2.47; 95% CI=1.75-3.48, respectively). Psychological distress, including embarrassment, pain, anxiety, discomfort, and stress, with self-sampling and urine sampling were significantly lower than that with the Pap test. 52% of participants reported preferences for self-sampling in the next screening round.

conclusionsKorean women were more likely to report satisfaction with alternative modalities (self-sampling and urine sampling) for CCS in comparison to the Pap test. This suggests that self-collected modalities may help with improving CCS uptake rates by eliminating burden related with the Pap test. However, further studies for test accuracy and cost-effective analysis of the alternative modalities should be conducted in order to apply CCS.

Indexed as

Patient SatisfactionAdultAgedDNA, ViralEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHumansMiddle AgedPapanicolaou TestPapillomavirus InfectionsPhysician-Patient RelationsSelf CareSpecimen HandlingUrinalysisUterine Cervical NeoplasmsVaginal SmearsDNA, ViralCancer ScreeningCervical NeoplasmHuman Papillomavirus DNA TestPap Test

Identifiers

PMID31328458
PMCPMC6658592

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.