Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34288949›Full record

Trial reportPloS one2021

Performance of an affordable urine self-sampling method for human papillomavirus detection in Mexican women.

Rubí Hernández-López, Luis Hermosillo, Leith León-Maldonado, Rafael Velázquez-Cruz, Leticia Torres-Ibarra, Eduardo Lazcano-Ponce, Attila Lörincz, Cosette M Wheeler, F Xavier Bosch, Jack Cuzick and 3 more

Open access · goldAbstract readClinical Trial, Phase IClinical Trial, Phase IIMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Trial report in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.9field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 22 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. A review of urinary HPV testing for cervical cancer management and HPV vaccine surveillance: rationale, strategies, and limitations.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2024
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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

13 authors at 7 institutions in 4 countries.

Rubí Hernández-LópezOficina de Análisis del Plan de Salud, Subgerencia Técnica del Plan de Salud, Gerencia de Administración del Plan de Salud, Banco de México, Mexico City, Mexico.
Luis HermosilloFacultad de Medicina, Centro de Investigación en Políticas, Población y Salud, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Mexico City, Mexico.ORCID 0000-0002-5471-9614
Leith León-MaldonadoConsejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología-Centro de Investigación en Salud Poblacional, Instituto Nacional de Salud Pública, Cuernavaca, Morelos, Mexico.ORCID 0000-0003-2106-206X
Rafael Velázquez-CruzLaboratorio de Genómica del Metabolismo Óseo, Instituto Nacional de Medicina Genómica (INMEGEN), Mexico City, Mexico.
Leticia Torres-IbarraCentro de Investigación en Salud Poblacional, Instituto Nacional de Salud Pública, Cuernavaca, Morelos, Mexico.
Eduardo Lazcano-PonceCentro de Investigación en Salud Poblacional, Instituto Nacional de Salud Pública, Cuernavaca, Morelos, Mexico.
Attila LörinczCentre for Cancer Prevention, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom.
Cosette M WheelerDepartment of Pathology and Obstetrics & Gynecology, University of New Mexico Comprehensive Cancer Center, Albuquerque, New Mexico, United States of America.
F Xavier BoschUnit of Infections and Cancer-Information and Interventions, Cancer Epidemiology Research Programme, Catalan Institute of Oncology (ICO)-IDIBELL, l'Hospitalet de Llobregat, Open University of Catalonia, Barcelona, Spain.
Jack CuzickCentre for Cancer Prevention, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom.
Berenice Rivera-ParedezFacultad de Medicina, Centro de Investigación en Políticas, Población y Salud, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Mexico City, Mexico.
Belinda NedjaiCentre for Cancer Prevention, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom.
Jorge SalmerónFacultad de Medicina, Centro de Investigación en Políticas, Población y Salud, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Mexico City, Mexico.ORCID 0000-0002-5113-299X
Instituto Nacional de Salud Pública · MXQueen Mary University of London · GBUniversidad Nacional Autónoma de México · MXBank of Mexico · MXNational Institute of Genomic Medicine · MXUniversitat Oberta de Catalunya · ESUniversity of New Mexico · US

Funding

Cancer Research UK 27046
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionUrine self-sampling for human papillomavirus (HPV)-based cervical cancer screening is a non-invasive method that offers several logistical advantages and high acceptability, reducing barriers related to low screening coverage. This study developed and evaluated the performance of a low-cost urine self-sampling method for HPV-testing and explored the acceptability and feasibility of potential implementation of this alternative in routine screening.

methodsA series of sequential laboratory assays examined the impact of several pre-analytical conditions for obtaining DNA from urine and subsequent HPV detection. Initially, we assessed the effect of ethylaminediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) as a DNA preservative examining several variables including EDTA concentration, specimen storage temperature, time between urine collection and DNA extraction, and first-morning micturition versus convenience sample collection. We further evaluated the agreement of HPV-testing between urine and clinician-collected cervical samples among 95 women. Finally, we explored the costs of self-sampling supplies as well as the acceptability and feasibility of urine self-sampling among women and healthcare workers.

resultsOur results revealed higher DNA concentrations were obtained when using a 40mM EDTA solution, storing specimens at 25°C and extracting DNA within 72 hrs. of urine collection, regardless of using first-morning micturition or a convenience sampling. We observed good agreement (Kappa = 0.72) between urine and clinician-collected cervical samples for HPV detection. Furthermore, urine self-sampling was an affordable method (USD 1.10), well accepted among cervical cancer screening users, healthcare workers, and decision-makers.

conclusionThese results suggest urine self-sampling is feasible and appropriate alternative for HPV-testing in HPV-based screening programs in lower-resource contexts.

Indexed as

AlphapapillomavirusDNA, ViralEarly Detection of CancerPapillomavirus InfectionsUrine Specimen CollectionUterine Cervical NeoplasmsAdultCervix UteriFemaleHumansMiddle AgedDNA, Viral

Identifiers

PMID34288949
PMCPMC8294492
OpenAlexW3183683379

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.