Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34639688›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2021

CoCoss-Trial: Concurrent Comparison of Self-Sampling Devices for HPV-Detection.

Faruk Cem Ertik, Johanna Kampers, Fabienne Hülse, Claudia Stolte, Gerd Böhmer, Peter Hillemanns, Matthias Jentschke

Open access · goldAbstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed
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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 29 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Comparison of Human Papillomavirus Genotyping by Research vs. Clinical Assay for Two Self-Collection Devices.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2025
    Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Observational
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. 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

7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Faruk Cem ErtikDepartment of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, Hannover Medical School, 30625 Hannover, Germany.
Johanna KampersDepartment of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, Hannover Medical School, 30625 Hannover, Germany.
Fabienne HülseDepartment of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, Hannover Medical School, 30625 Hannover, Germany.
Claudia StolteIZD Hannover, 30159 Hannover, Germany.
Gerd BöhmerIZD Hannover, 30159 Hannover, Germany.
Peter HillemannsDepartment of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, Hannover Medical School, 30625 Hannover, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-9829-3531
Matthias JentschkeDepartment of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, Hannover Medical School, 30625 Hannover, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-7613-1531
Medizinische Hochschule Hannover · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

High-risk human papillomavirus (hr-HPV) infection of the cervicovaginal tract is known to be the major cause of cervical cancer. Similar to various other countries, Germany introduced an organized combined screening including cytology and HPV testing in 2020. The participation rate was around 70% in the past. Self-testing for hr-HPV infections could be an option to increase the participation rate. Two dry vaginal self-sampling devices and a device for the self-collection of first-void urine were evaluated in combination with a PCR-based hr-HPV test regarding their clinical performance (sensitivity for high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia, CIN 2+). A cervical smear taken by a clinician during colposcopy was used as reference. This open prospective multicenter trial recruited patients referred to the two participating colposcopy clinics (Hannover Medical School and IZD Hannover, Germany) with abnormal results from cervical cancer screening from 05/2020 to 11/2020. All patients received three CE-certified self-sampling devices (FLOQSwabs, COPAN, Italy; Evalyn Brush, Rovers Medical Devices, the Netherlands; Colli-Pee FV-5000, Novosanis, Wijnegem, Belgium) with instructions to read and apply at home in a pre-specified alternating order without medical assistance. HPV testing was performed after adequate preservation and DNA extraction. Histological results from colposcopy or cervical excisional surgery after self-sampling were used as the gold-standard. The data of 65 patients were analyzed. All invasive cancer cases and over 90% of the CIN 3 lesions were found to be hr-HPV positive with all three self-collection devices. All devices were considered easy to use without any difficulties following the written instructions. Hr-HPV testing of self-collected first-void urine and dry vaginal self-samples showed a high sensitivity for CIN 3+ comparable to that of a clinician-taken smear. Self-sampling was well accepted as it is convenient and easy to use.

Indexed as

Papillomavirus InfectionsUterine Cervical NeoplasmsDNA, ViralEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHumansMass ScreeningPapillomaviridaeProspective StudiesSensitivity and SpecificityVaginal SmearsDNA, Viralcervical cancer screeningHPV-testinghr-HPVself-sampling

Identifiers

PMID34639688
PMCPMC8508434
OpenAlexW3202415940

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.