ArticleBMJ open2021
Clinical performance and acceptability of self-collected vaginal and urine samples compared with clinician-taken cervical samples for HPV testing among women referred for colposcopy. A cross-sectional study.
Article in BMJ open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 37 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
37 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Self-Collected Vaginal Specimens for HPV Testing: Recommendations From the Enduring Consensus Cervical Cancer Screening and Management Guidelines Committee.Journal of lower genital tract disease · 2025Guideline
- Clinical Performance of a Dedicated Urine-Based Assay for the Detection of Human Papillomavirus and Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia.International journal of women's health · 2023Trial
- Discovery and analytical assessment of urinary miRNA biomarkers for cervical cancer using advanced small RNA sequencing.Translational oncology · 2026Article
- Agreement and Diagnostic Performance of Urinary HPV Testing Versus Clinician-Collected Cervico-Vaginal Sampling: A Prospective Cross-Sectional Study in a Romanian Cohort.Medical sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Evaluation of the Quality and Suitability of Self-Collected Vaginal and Urine Samples for Human Papillomavirus Testing: A Prospective Matched Study.BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology · 2026Article
- Clinical performance of ASCL1/LHX8 DNA methylation on first-void urine to screen for cervical cancer.Communications medicine · 2026Article
- Evidence from Europe on implementation, participation and performance of self-collection for cervical cancer screening.Future oncology (London, England) · 2026Review
- Article
- Understanding knowledge, beliefs, values and barriers towards cervical cancer screening and self-sampling amongst migrant Muslim women in Southwest London: an in-depth qualitative interview study.BMJ public health · 2026Article
- Metabolic comparison of minimally to noninvasive urogenital sample types for studying gynecologic health: A pilot study.iScience · 2025Article
- Cervical Cancer Biomarkers in Non-Cervical Samples: Emerging Tools for Diagnosis and Prognosis.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Review
- High-risk human papillomavirus testing in first-void urine as a novel and non-invasive cervical cancer screening modality-a Danish diagnostic test accuracy study.BMC medicine · 2025Observational
- Advancing Cervical Cancer Prevention Equity: Innovations in Self-Sampling and Digital Health Technologies Across Healthcare Settings.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Improving cervical cancer screening participation by introducing HPV vaginal self-sampling to women living with HIV in Denmark- a pilot study.BMC women's health · 2025Article
- Optimization and analytical validation of the Allplex HPV28 genotyping assay for use in first-void urine samples.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2025Article
- Home-based urinary HPV self-sampling for the detection of cervical cancer precursor lesions: attitudes and preferences from Belgian females participating in the CASUS study.Archives of public health = Archives belges de sante publique · 2025Article
- Diagnostic accuracy of human papillomavirus testing on self-collected samples among women referred for colposcopy.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Acceptability of Vaginal Human Papillomavirus Self-Collection Among Colposcopy Clinic Attendees.Women's health reports (New Rochelle, N.Y.) · 2025Article
- Looking Back, Moving Forward: Challenges and Opportunities for Global Cervical Cancer Prevention and Control.Viruses · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo increase effectiveness of the cervical cancer screening program, self-sampling can be an option. Both self-collected vaginal samples (SCV) and urine samples may be useful alternatives to clinician-taken cervical samples (CS).
designCross-sectional study.
settingColposcopy clinic.
participantsWomen (n=305) referred to colposcopy after abnormal cervical screening result or conditions like postcoital bleeding.
interventionAll women self-collected a urine and a vaginal sample prior to colposcopy, where a CS and biopsies were taken. All samples were tested for high-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) using the Cobas HPV assay. The gold standard was histology diagnoses (CIN2+/CIN3+) from biopsies obtained at the same examination. PRIMARY OUTCOME: Absolute and relative sensitivity and specificity of HPV testing on SCV and urine to detect CIN2+/CIN3+ compared with the CS. SECONDARY OUTCOME: The acceptability by women of self-sampling.
resultsBoth the vaginal and urine sample were comparable to the CS in identifying severe intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN2+/CIN3+). Absolute sensitivity ranged from 93% for urine samples to 96% for SCV for detecting CIN2+, which is comparable to the sensitivity of CS (overlapping 95% CI).The relative sensitivity for detecting CIN2+ was 1.00 (95% CI 0.96 to 1.04) for SCV and 0.96 (95% CI 0.91 to 1.03) for urine samples. At CIN3+, the relative sensitivity was 1.00 (95% CI 0.96 to 1.08) and 0.97 (95% CI 0.89 to 1.07) for SCV and urine samples, respectively. There were no statistical differences between the self-collected samples and the CS (McNemar's test >0.05). The relative specificity was also similar (1.03 (95% CI 0.95 to 1.12) for SCV and 0.98 (95% CI 0.89 to 1.09) for urine samples) (McNemar's test >0.05).The acceptability of self-sampling was evaluated by questionnaire. The women found the instructions on sample collection easy to understand and were positive about self-sampling with a preference for the urine sample.
conclusionSelf-sampling by SCV and urine is a clinically safe alternative to CS with a high degree of acceptability.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.