Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34011537›Full record

SynthesisBMJ global health2021

HPV self-sampling for cervical cancer screening: a systematic review of values and preferences.

Holly Nishimura, Ping Teresa Yeh, Habibat Oguntade, Caitlin E Kennedy, Manjulaa Narasimhan

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMJ global health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 144 papers, 12 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
144citing papers in PubMed, 12 pooled it
18.1field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

144 citing papers in PubMed, 12 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 193 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Cervical cancer screening strategies in women 65 years and older in the human papillomavirus era: A systematic review and meta-analysis of human papillomavirus-based testing and self-sampling approaches.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Guideline
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Trial
  19. Article
  20. Article

84 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Holly NishimuraDepartment of International Health, Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, USA holly.nishimura@jhu.edu.
Ping Teresa YehDepartment of International Health, Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-7425-0382
Habibat OguntadeDepartment of International Health, Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Caitlin E KennedyDepartment of International Health, Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Manjulaa NarasimhanDepartment of Sexual and Reproductive Health and Research, UNDP-UNFPA-UNICEF-WHO-World Bank Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction (HRP), Geneva, Switzerland.
Johns Hopkins University · USWorld Health Organization · CH

Funding

World Health Organization 001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThe WHO recommends human papillomavirus (HPV) cervical self-sampling as an additional screening method and HPV DNA testing as an effective approach for the early detection of cervical cancer for women aged ≥30 years. This systematic review assesses end user's values and preferences related to HPV self-sampling.

methodsWe searched four electronic databases (PubMed, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature and Embase) using search terms for HPV and self-sampling to identify articles meeting inclusion criteria. A standardised data extraction form was used to capture study setting, population, sample size and results related to values and preferences.

resultsOf 1858 records retrieved, 72 studies among 52 114 participants published between 2002 and 2018 were included in this review. Almost all studies were cross-sectional surveys. Study populations included end users who were mainly adolescent girls and adult women. Ages ranged from 14 to 80 years. Most studies (57%) were conducted in high-income countries. Women generally found HPV self-sampling highly acceptable regardless of age, income or country of residence. Lack of self-confidence with collecting a reliable sample was the most commonly cited reason for preferring clinician-collected samples. Most women preferred home-based self-sampling to self-sampling at a clinic. The cervical swab was the most common and most accepted HPV DNA sampling device.

conclusionsHPV self-sampling is generally a highly accepted method of cervical cancer screening for end users globally. End user preferences for self-sampling device, method and setting can inform the development of new and expanded interventions to increase HPV screening.

Indexed as

AlphapapillomavirusPapillomavirus InfectionsUterine Cervical NeoplasmsAdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overCross-Sectional StudiesEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHumansMiddle AgedPapillomaviridaeSelf CareYoung Adultcancerdiseasedisorderor injuryother infectionpublic healthsystematic review

Identifiers

PMID34011537
PMCPMC8137189
OpenAlexW3163098986

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.