ArticleBMC infectious diseases2021
Self-collected versus clinician-collected cervical samples for the detection of HPV infections by 14-type DNA and 7-type mRNA tests.
Article in BMC infectious diseases, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 4 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
27 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 41 citations in OpenAlex.
- Liquid Biopsy Biomarkers for Cervical Cancer: A Systematic Review.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Pooled it
- Concordance of Primary Human Papillomavirus Testing Among Clinicians and Patients: A Systematic Review.Journal of women's health (2002) · 2023Pooled it
- 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
- Recent HPV self-sampling use for cervical cancer screening in Latin America and Caribbean: a systematic review.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Pooled it
- Self-collected cervical samples for detection of high-risk human papillomavirus: A community outreach approach in a remote region.The Indian journal of medical research · 2026Article
- Mock Samples That Mimic Human Cervicovaginal Samples to Accelerate the Development and Evaluation of Assays for High-Risk HPV for Cervical Cancer Screening.Journal of medical virology · 2026Article
- Article
- Article
- Evaluating The Feasibility and Acceptability of Cervical Cancer Screening in an Urban Slum Community by HPV Self-Sampling With the Aid of Telecounselling: Lessons Learnt.Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP · 2025Article
- Extraction-free RT-RPA assay for detection of HPV16, HPV18, and HPV45 mRNA expression.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Article
- Genotype-Specific HPV mRNA Triage Improves CIN2+ Detection Efficiency Compared to Cytology: A Population-Based Study of HPV DNA-Positive Women.Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Advancing Cervical Cancer Prevention Equity: Innovations in Self-Sampling and Digital Health Technologies Across Healthcare Settings.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Comparative Analysis of HPV Detection Efficiency: Evaluating Cobas 8800 Performance in Vaginal Self-Sampling versus Clinician-Collected Samples at a Regional Thai Hospital.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Article
- Comparison of diagnostic accuracy and acceptability of self-sampling devices for human Papillomavirus detection: A systematic review.Preventive medicine reports · 2024Review
- Clinical Performance of Self-collected Specimen HPV-DNA vs Clinician- collected Specimen HPV-mRNA to Detect High-risk HPV and High-grade Cervical Lesions and Cancer.Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP · 2024Article
- Human papillomavirus self-sampling versus provider-sampling in low- and middle-income countries: a scoping review of accuracy, acceptability, cost, uptake, and equity.Frontiers in public health · 2024Article
- An integrated isothermal nucleic acid amplification test to detect HPV16 and HPV18 DNA in resource-limited settings.Science translational medicine · 2023Article
- Experiences of human papillomavirus self-sampling by women >60 years old: A qualitative study.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 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
5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHPV self-sampling has been widely supported by the scientific community following a strong body of literature on the subject. Self-sampling is important in cervical cancer screening as it has been shown to improve participation. It is well documented that HPV-testing has proven superior to cytology with regards to sensitivity in detection of CIN and cancer. The value of self-collected samples is reliant on the quality of the molecular testing performed, as well as the patients' preference in sampling procedure and compliance to follow up on positive test results. Due to the incompatibility of self-samples and cytology, triage of HPV-DNA positives by testing for molecular biomarkers is highly warranted.
methodsOur objective was to compare the detection rate of genital Human Papillomavirus (HPV) infection in self- and clinician-collected samples by a 14-type HPV-DNA test and a 7-type mRNA E6/E7 test.
resultsFive hundred five women were recruited. Each study participant had two sample collection procedures performed upon the same visit, alternating order in execution of the self-collection or the clinician-taken procedure first or second, 1010 samples in total. HPV-DNA prevalence was 22.8% in self-collected versus 19.2% in clinician-collected samples (P = 0.19). Overexpression of mRNA E6/E7 from 7 HPV types was 7.1 and 6.3%, respectively (P = 0.71). The difference between HPV-DNA and HPV-mRNA positivity rates were statistically significant in both self-collected (22.8% versus 7.1%, P < 0.001) and clinician-collected samples (19.2% versus 6.3%, P < 0.001). Overall agreement between the two collection methods was fair, with a concordance rate of 78.2% (390/505), k = 0.34 (95% CI: 0.25-0.44), P < 0.001, for the HPV-DNA test and 92.5% (467/505), k = 0.40 (95% CI, 0.25-0.56), P < 0.001, for the mRNA test, respectively. 96.8% of the participants reported they felt confident carrying out the self-collection themselves, and 88.8% reported no discomfort at all performing the procedure.
conclusionsThis comparative study of two sampling methods reports fair agreement of HPV positivity rates between the self-collected and clinician-collected specimens using Abbott hrHPV and PreTect HPV-Proofer'7 tests. Only one third of HPV-DNA positive women had overexpression of mRNA E6/E7.
trial registrationISRCTN77337300 .
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.