Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33407355›Full record

ReviewBMC women's health2021

Human Papilloma Virus self-sampling performance in low- and middle-income countries.

Ashwini Kamath Mulki, Mellissa Withers

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in BMC women's health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 53 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
53citing 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

53 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. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Evaluation ofDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024
    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.

Ashwini Kamath MulkiDepartment of Family Medicine, Lehigh Valley Health Network, 1730 Chew St, Allentown, PA, 18104, USA. Ashwini.KamathMulki@lvhn.org.ORCID 0000-0003-1888-0643
Mellissa WithersKeck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, 2001 N Soto Street SSB 318G, Los Angeles, CA, 90032, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundScreening for HPV has led to significant reductions in cervical cancer deaths in high-income countries. However, the same results have not been achieved in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). HPV self-sampling is a novel approach that could improve screening rates.

methodsThis study's objective is to summarize the recent literature on HPV self-sampling in LMICs, focusing on sensitivity/specificity, and feasibility/acceptability of self-sampling compared to traditional screening methods. We conducted a PubMed search for articles published in English within the last 10 years on self-sampling in LMICs.

resultsFifty eligible articles from 26 countries were included, 19 of which came from sub-Saharan Africa and 18 from Latin America/Caribbean. Seven studies examined sensitivity, with five reporting rates higher than 91%. Six reported on specificity, which was also very high at 86-97.8%. Six studies examined self-sampling concordance with provider-collected sampling, with concordance rates ranging from 87 to 97.5%. A total of 38 studies examined the feasibility/acceptability of HPV self-sampling. Participation rates were very high in all studies, even when self-sampling was done at participants' homes (over 89% participation). Overall, participants reported that HPV self-sampling was easy to perform (75-97%, 18 studies), painless (60-90%, nine studies), and preferred over provider-collected sampling (57-100%, 14 studies). Eight studies reported follow-up rates for participants who completed self-sampling; however, these rates varied widely-from 13.7 to 90%. The major benefits of self-sampling include convenience of screening from home, less embarrassment, and less travel. Improved education and awareness of self-sampling, combined with support from community health workers, could reduce perceptions of self-sampling being inferior to provider-collected sampling. Improving follow-up of abnormal results and improving linkages to treatment are also essential.

conclusionOur literature review highlights HPV self-sampling is a well-performing test that shows promise in terms of expanding screening efforts for the prevention of cervical cancer-related deaths in LMICs.

Indexed as

AlphapapillomavirusPapillomavirus InfectionsUterine Cervical NeoplasmsDeveloping CountriesEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHumansMass ScreeningPapillomaviridaeSelf CareSpecimen HandlingVaginal SmearsCervical cancerHPVScreeningSelf-sampling

Identifiers

PMID33407355
PMCPMC7789658

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.