Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34181439›Full record

ArticleJCO global oncology2021

Concordance in HPV Detection Between Self-Collected and Health Provider-Collected Cervicovaginal Samples Using careHPV in Tanzanian Women.

Johnson J Katanga, Vibeke Rasch, Rachel Manongi, Andrea B Pembe, Julius D Mwaiselage, Susanne K Kjaer

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JCO global oncology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
3.0field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 25 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. 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

6 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

Johnson J KatangaOcean Road Cancer Institute, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.ORCID 0000-0002-1021-2280
Vibeke RaschDepartment of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark.
Rachel ManongiInstitute of Public Health, Kilimanjaro Christian Medical University College, Kilimanjaro, Tanzania.ORCID 0000-0003-3841-974X
Andrea B PembeMuhimbili University of Health and Allied Sciences, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.
Julius D MwaiselageOcean Road Cancer Institute, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.
Susanne K KjaerDanish Cancer Society Research Center, Unit of Virus, Lifestyle and Genes, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Muhimbili University of Health and Allied Sciences · TZKilimanjaro Christian Medical Centre · TZOcean Road Cancer Institute · TZUniversity of Copenhagen · DKUniversity of Southern Denmark · DK

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeCervical cancer screening is one of the strategies to prevent the disease among women at risk. Human papillomavirus (HPV) DNA testing is increasingly used as the cervical cancer screening method because of its high sensitivity. Self-collection of cervical specimens has the potential to improve participation. However, there is only limited information on comparison between self-collected and provider-collected samples with regard to detection of high-risk HPV using the careHPV method. The study aimed to compare HPV detection by careHPV in self-collected and provider-collected cervical samples and to assess the acceptability of self-collection techniques. MATERIAL AND

methodsWomen attending cervical cancer screening clinics at Ocean Road Cancer Institute, Kilimanjaro Christian Medical Centre or Mawenzi Hospital in Tanzania were included in the study. They underwent a face-to-face interview, HIV testing, and collected a self-sample using Evalyn Brush. Subsequently, they had a cervical sample taken by a health provider. Both samples were tested for high-risk HPV DNA using careHPV.

resultsOverall, 464 women participated in the study. The high-risk HPV prevalence was 19.0% (95% CI, 15.6 to 22.9) in the health provider samples, but lower (13.8%; 95% CI, 10.9 to 17.3) in the self-collected samples. There was a good overall agreement 90.5% (95% CI, 87.5 to 93.0) and concordance (κ = 0.66; 95% CI, 0.56 to 0.75) between the two sets of samples. Sensitivity and specificity were 61.4% (95% CI, 50.4 to 71.6) and 97.3% (95% CI, 95.2 to 98.7), respectively, varying with age. Most women preferred self-collection (79.8%).

conclusionOverall, self-sampling seems to be a reliable alternative to health-provider collection and is acceptable to the majority of women. However, instructions on proper procedures for sample collection to the women are important.

Indexed as

Papillomavirus InfectionsUterine Cervical NeoplasmsEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHumansTanzaniaVaginal Smears

Identifiers

PMID34181439
PMCPMC8457784
OpenAlexW3177425997

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.