ArticleBMC women's health2021
Comparison of cervical cancer screening by self-sampling papillomavirus test versus pap-smear in underprivileged women in France.
Article in BMC women's health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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.
Improving Access to Cervical Cancer Screening for Women Living in Precarious Conditions Met Within Doctors of the World Programs
PAPMOBILE: Mobile Outreach Screening of High-Risk Human Papillomavirus Infection in Women with Limited Access to Health Services in Seine-Saint-Denis (greater Paris Area, France)
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Does self-sampling for human papilloma virus testing have the potential to increase cervical cancer screening? An updated meta-analysis of observational studies and randomized clinical trials.Frontiers in public health · 2022Pooled it
- The co-creation of a document to guide the use of self-sampling for human papillomavirus screening in Italy.Journal of medical screening · 2026Article
- Evidence from Europe on implementation, participation and performance of self-collection for cervical cancer screening.Future oncology (London, England) · 2026Review
- Article
- Factors influencing the participation of groups identified as underserved in cervical cancer screening in Europe: a scoping review of the literature.Frontiers in public health · 2023Article
- Cervical cancer screening programs for female sex workers: a scoping review.Frontiers in public health · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 7 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe purpose of this study was to compare cervical cancer screening by pap smear (PS) versus preliminary HPV testing based on self-collected samples (SC-HPV).
methodsInterventional study among underprivileged women from 25 to 65 years old in four French cities. The control group (CG) was referred for a PS. The experimental group (EG) conducted a SC-HPV test followed by a PS in case of positivity. Differences on screening completion and cytological abnormalities were analysed by logistic and Cox regression.
results383 women were assigned to the EG and 304 to the CG. The screening completion proportion was 39.5% in the CG compared to 71.3% in the EG (HR = 2.48 (CI 95% [1.99-3.08]; p < 0.001). The proportion of cytological abnormalities was 2.0% in the CG and 2.3% in the EG (OR = 1.20 (CI 95% [0.42-3.40]; p = 0.7). The proportion of participants lost to follow-up was 60.5% in the CG and 63.2% in the EG HPV positive (p = 0.18).
conclusionProviding an SC-HPV-test increased the participation of underprivileged women in CCS. Nevertheless, the significant number of lost to follow-up in both groups can undermine the initial benefits of the strategy for HPV positive women. Registration: Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT03118258.
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.