ArticlePloS one2021
Acceptability and efficacy of vaginal self-sampling for genital infection and bacterial vaginosis: A cross-sectional study.
Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 3 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Acceptability of self-sampling and self-testing for infections: a rapid systematic review on public users' views.BMC public health · 2025Pooled it
- Accuracy of self-collected versus healthcare worker collected specimens for diagnosing sexually transmitted infections in females: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis.Scientific reports · 2024Pooled it
- Self-collection of samples for group B streptococcus testing during pregnancy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC medicine · 2023Pooled it
- Acceptability and feasibility of one-stop home-based genital self-sampling for female genital schistosomiasis, human papilloma virus and self-testing for trichomonas and HIV: the Zipime Weka Schista study in Zambia.BMC women's health · 2026Article
- Metabolic comparison of minimally to noninvasive urogenital sample types for studying gynecologic health: A pilot study.iScience · 2025Article
- Young women's perspectives on a user-friendly self-sampling intervention to improve the diagnosis of sexually transmitted infections in underserved communities in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa.BMC women's health · 2025Article
- Perceptions of a Diverse Group of U.S. Women on the Ease of Vaginal Self-Sampling for Cancer Detection.Women's health reports (New Rochelle, N.Y.) · 2025Article
- Citizen science as an instrument for women's health research.Nature medicine · 2024Article
- The Vaginal Microbiome: Patient- versus Physician-Collected Microbial Swab: A Pilot Study.Microorganisms · 2024Article
- Increased reproductive tract infections among secondary school girls during the COVID-19 pandemic: associations with pandemic-related stress, mental health, and domestic safety.Sexual medicine · 2024Article
- Bacterial Vaginosis: What Do We Currently Know?Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND &
aimScreening for genital infection (GI) such as bacterial vaginosis (BV) and yeast infection, for sexually transmitted infection (STI), and for asymptomatic carriage of group B streptococcus (GBS) in pregnant women are common reason for medical appointments. The diagnosis and control of GIs, STIs, and GBS are major issues, for fertility and overall well-being of affected women. Conventional testing is performed using vaginal/cervical classical sampling (VCS); this procedure requires pelvic examination performed by health care professionals which raises concerns among women. Vaginal-self-sampling (VSS), as an alternative to VCS, might capture more women. The aim was first to show non-inferiority of VSS compared with VCS to screen for GIs, STIs, and GBS; second to determine the feasibility of VSS.
methodsVSS and VCS from 1027 women were collected by health care professionals and simultaneously carried out on each patient. GIs, STIs, and GBS were systematically screened in both paired VSS and VCS samples. Non-inferiority of VSS compared with VCS was assessed using z statistic for binomial proportions.
resultsPrevalence of GIs were 39.7% using VSS and 38.1% using VCS (p = 0.0016). Prevalence of STIs was 8.5% (VSS) vs 8.1% (VCS) (p = 0.0087). Prevalence of GBS was 13.4% (VSS) and 11.5% (VCS) (p = 0.0001). Most participants (84%) recommended the use of VSS.
conclusionsThis study shows that VSS was not inferior to VCS for the detection of GIs, STIs, and GBS. This study provides evidence that VSS can be used as a universal specimen for detection of lower genital tract infections in women. STUDY IDENTIFICATION NUMBER: ID-RCB 2014-A01250-4.
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.