ArticleInternational journal of cancer2022
Self-sampling as the principal modality for population based cervical screening: Five-year follow-up of the PaVDaG study.
Article in International journal of cancer, 2022. 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.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 23 citations in OpenAlex.
- Self-collected vaginal specimens for human papillomavirus testing and guidance on screening exit: An update to the American Cancer Society cervical cancer screening guideline.CA: a cancer journal for cliniciansGuideline
- HPValidate-human papillomavirus testing with DNA and mRNA assays on self-collected samples in cervical screening: comparison of test characteristics on three self-sampling devices.British journal of cancer · 2025Article
- Improving the Sensitivity-Specificity Balance of Human Papillomavirus Testing on Self- and Clinician-Collected Samples in South Africa.JCO global oncology · 2025Article
- Prevalence of High-Risk HPV Infection in Community Women at Ho Chi Minh City in 2024: A Cross-Sectional Study with Self-Collect Sampling.International journal of women's health · 2025Article
- Variables that impact HPV test accuracy during vaginal self collection workflow for cervical cancer screening.Gynecologic oncology reports · 2024Review
- Older women's perceptions of HPV self-sampling and HPV-sampling performed by a midwife - a phenomenographic study.BMC public health · 2024Article
- Widening the offer of human papillomavirus self-sampling to all women eligible for cervical screening: Make haste slowly.International journal of cancer · 2023Review
- Human papillomavirus testing on self-collected samples to detect high-grade cervical lesions in rural Bhutan: The REACH-Bhutan study.Cancer medicine · 2023Article
- Improving the uptake of cervical screening in pregnant and recently postnatal women: a quality improvement project.BMJ open quality · 2022Article
- Self-sampling as the principal modality for population based cervical screening: Five-year follow-up of the PaVDaG study.International journal of cancer · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 6 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Self-sampling provides a powerful means to engage women in cervical screening. In the original Papillomavirus Dumfries and Galloway study (PaVDaG), we demonstrated cross-sectional similarity of high-risk human papillomavirus (Hr-HPV) testing on self-taken vaginal vs clinician-taken samples for the detection of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 2 or worse (CIN2+). Few data exist on the longitudinal performance of self-sampling; we present longitudinal outcomes of PaVDaG. Routinely screened women provided a self-taken and a clinician-collected sample. Ninety-one percent of 5136 women from the original cohort completed a further screening round. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and complement of the negative predictive value of the Hr-HPV test on self-samples for detection of CIN2+ and CIN3+ up-to 5 years after testing were determined. Additionally, clinical accuracy of Hr-HPV testing on vaginal and clinician-collected samples was assessed. A total of 183 CIN2+ and 102 CIN3+ lesions were diagnosed during follow-up. Risk of CIN2+ and CIN3+ following an Hr-HPV negative self-sample was 0.6% and 0.2%, respectively, for up to 5 years after testing. The relative sensitivity for CIN3+ and specificity for ≤CIN1 of Hr-HPV testing on self-taken specimens was slightly lower vs clinician-collected samples: 0.95 (95% CI: 0.90-0.99; P
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.