Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32663222›Full record

ArticlePLoS neglected tropical diseases2020

Genital self-sampling compared with cervicovaginal lavage for the diagnosis of female genital schistosomiasis in Zambian women: The BILHIV study.

Amy S Sturt, Emily L Webb, Comfort R Phiri, Tobias Mweene, Namakau Chola, Govert J van Dam, Paul L A M Corstjens, Els Wessels, J Russell Stothard, Richard Hayes and 4 more

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS neglected tropical diseases, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 47 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
47citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
5.0field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

47 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 59 citations in OpenAlex.

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

14 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.

Amy S SturtDepartment of Clinical Research, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-3437-3334
Emily L WebbMRC Tropical Epidemiology Group, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-4019-7456
Comfort R PhiriZambart, Lusaka, Zambia.ORCID 0000-0003-4268-4095
Tobias MweeneZambart, Lusaka, Zambia.
Namakau CholaZambart, Lusaka, Zambia.
Govert J van DamDepartment of Parasitology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-3773-0819
Paul L A M CorstjensDepartment of Cell and Chemical Biology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-0004-0526
Els WesselsDepartment of Medical Microbiology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-6707-2311
J Russell StothardDepartment of Tropical Disease Biology, Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Liverpool, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-9370-3420
Richard HayesMRC Tropical Epidemiology Group, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-1729-9892
Helen AylesDepartment of Clinical Research, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-4108-2842
Isaiah HansingoDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Livingstone Central Hospital, Livingstone, Zambia.ORCID 0000-0003-1022-3788
Lisette van LieshoutDepartment of Parasitology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Amaya L BustinduyDepartment of Clinical Research, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-6131-4159
London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine · GBLeiden University Medical Center · NLZambart · ZMLiverpool School of Tropical Medicine · GB

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/K012126/1Medical Research Council MR/R010161/1Wellcome TrustWellcome Trust 205954/Z/17/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundGiven the potentially causal association of female genital schistosomiasis (FGS) with HIV-1 infection, improved diagnostics are urgently needed to scale-up FGS surveillance. The BILHIV (bilharzia and HIV) study assessed the performance of home-based self-collection methods (cervical and vaginal swabs) compared to cervicovaginal lavage (CVL) for the detection of Schistosoma DNA by real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR).

methodsBetween January and August 2018, a consecutive series of female participants from the Population-Cohort of the previous HIV prevention trial HPTN 071 (PopART), resident in Livingstone, Zambia were invited to take part in BILHIV if they were 18-31 years old, non-pregnant and sexually active. Genital self-collected swabs and a urine specimen were obtained and a questionnaire completed at home visits. CVL was obtained at clinic follow-up.

results603 women self-collected genital swabs. Of these, 527 women had CVL performed by a mid-wife during clinic follow-up. Schistosoma DNA was more frequently detected in genital self-collected specimens (24/603, 4.0%) compared to CVL (14/527, 2.7%). Overall, 5.0% (30/603) women had female genital schistosomiasis, defined as a positive PCR by any genital sampling method (cervical swab PCR, vaginal swab PCR, or CVL PCR) and 95% (573/603) did not have a positive genital PCR. The sensitivity of any positive genital self-collected swab against CVL was 57.1% (95% CI 28.9-82.3%), specificity 97.3% (95.5-98.5%). In a subset of participants with active schistosome infection, determined by detectable urine Circulating Anodic Antigen (CAA) (15.1%, 91/601), positive PCR (4.3%, 26/601), or positive microscopy (5.5%, 33/603), the sensitivity of any positive self-collected specimen against CVL was 88.9% (51.8-99.7%).

conclusionsGenital self-sampling increased the overall number of PCR-based FGS diagnoses in a field setting, compared with CVL. Home-based sampling may represent a scalable alternative method for FGS community-based diagnosis in endemic resource limited settings.

Indexed as

AdultAnimalsCervix UteriCohort StudiesFemaleHIV InfectionsHumansSchistosomaSchistosomiasisSelf-ExaminationSpecimen HandlingTherapeutic IrrigationVaginaYoung AdultZambia

Identifiers

PMID32663222
PMCPMC7360036
OpenAlexW3035707296

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.