Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35326937›Full record

ArticleHealthcare (Basel, Switzerland)2022

Comparison of Different Self-Sampling Devices for Molecular Detection of Human Papillomavirus (HPV) and Other Sexually Transmitted Infections (STIs): A Pilot Study.

Illari Sechi, Cocuzza Clementina Elvezia, Marianna Martinelli, Narcisa Muresu, Santina Castriciano, Giovanni Sotgiu, Andrea Piana

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
3.9field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. 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
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. 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 2 institutions in 1 country.

Illari SechiDepartment of Medical, Surgical and Experimental Sciences, University of Sassari, Padre Manzella Street 4, 07029 Sassari, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-7477-8320
Cocuzza Clementina ElveziaDepartment of Medicine and Surgery, University of Milano-Bicocca, Cadore Street, 48, 20900 Milano, Italy.ORCID 0000-0001-6166-1134
Marianna MartinelliDepartment of Medicine and Surgery, University of Milano-Bicocca, Cadore Street, 48, 20900 Milano, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-2273-6986
Narcisa MuresuDepartment of Medical, Surgical and Experimental Sciences, University of Sassari, Padre Manzella Street 4, 07029 Sassari, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-3847-870X
Santina CastricianoCopan Italia S.p.A., 25125 Brescia, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-0666-7370
Giovanni SotgiuClinical Epidemiology and Medical Statistics Unit, Department of Medical, Surgical and Experimental Sciences, University of Sassari, Padre Manzella Street 4, 07029 Sassari, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-1600-4474
Andrea PianaDepartment of Medical, Surgical and Experimental Sciences, University of Sassari, Padre Manzella Street 4, 07029 Sassari, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-6609-8886
University of Sassari · ITUniversity of Milano-Bicocca · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCervical cancer is the fourth most common cancer in women, and it is well known that high-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) infections are the necessary carcinogenic factors for the development of cervical tumors. Moreover, the interaction between HPV and other sexually transmitted infections (STIs) may increase the risk of cancer progression. Self-sampling has been demonstrated to represent a valid and well-accepted alternative, favoring women's participation in screening programs. This study aimed to investigate the use of FLOQSwabs

methodsCervical and vaginal self-samples were collected, using two different combinations of vaginal self-sampling devices, from 40 women referred to colposcopy for a documented abnormal Pap smear. All samples were tested for hrHPV and seven STI pathogens using two commercial molecular assays.

resultsData on hrHPV detection from the first group of women showed an almost perfect agreement (kappa: 0.89) between cervical vs. FS vaginal self-samples, and a substantial agreement (kappa: 0.79) between cervical and HerSwab™ (HS) samples. In the second group of women, an almost perfect agreement (kappa: 0.90) was demonstrated in the detection of hrHPV between cervical samples vs. FS, and a moderate agreement (kappa: 0.60) for cervical vs. Evalyn

conclusionEvaluation of the three different vaginal self-collection devices confirmed their overall good acceptability by the studied population, as well as a similar agreement for hrHPV detection as compared to cervical samples. Our study indicated that the use of self-collected samples offers an alternative strategy to improve women's participation in cervical cancer screening programs, but also underlined the importance of evaluating the concordance in hrHPV detection of collection devices in combination with the molecular hrHPV assay.

Indexed as

acceptabilityclinical accuracyhigh-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV)HPV (human papillomavirus)self-collected samplessexually transmitted infections (STIs)vaginal self-sampling devices

Identifiers

PMID35326937
PMCPMC8950387
OpenAlexW4214705336

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.