ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2022
Acceptability of Human Papilloma Virus Self-Sampling for Cervical Cancer Screening in a Cohort of Patients from Romania (Stage 2).
Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cervical Cancer Screening Activity at an Accredited Centre in Romania, 2018-2025: COVID-19 Disruption, Recovery and the Transition to Primary HPV Testing.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Natural Polymers in Tissue Engineering and Regeneration: Material-Cell Mechanotransduction, Biofabrication Strategies, and Clinical Translation.Biomedicines · 2026Review
- A Prospective Study on the Progression, Recurrence, and Regression of Cervical Lesions: Assessing Various Screening Approaches.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
(1) Background: Low patient’s adherence to conventional cervical cancer screening methods determined the need to take into consideration alternative approaches, and vaginal HPV self-sampling is one of them. We aimed to evaluate, using an online survey, the Romanian women’s acceptability of vaginal HPV self-sampling. (2) Methods: A 13-questions online survey was distributed on three Facebook groups, and the results were summarized. (3) Results: Despite of good educational background, 10.8% (n = 60) of the respondents did not know what a Pap smear is, and 33% (n = 183) were not informed about the free national cervical cancer screening program. Multivariate analysis revealed an increased likelihood of vaginal self-sampling acceptance among respondents who did not know about Pap test (OR: 7.80; 95%CI: 1.062−57.431; p = 0.021), national cervical cancer screening program (OR: 1.96; 95%CI: 1.010−3.806; p = 0.02), HPV infection (OR: 7.35; 95%CI: 3.099−17.449; p< 0.001) or HPV test (OR: 1.67; 95%CI: 0.950−2.948; p = 0.03). Moreover, women who did not previously undergo a cervical cancer screening program were more likely to accept the new screening method (OR: 1.62; 95%CI: 0.878−3.015; p = 0.04). (4) Conclusions: Our results showed high acceptability rates of vaginal HPV self-sampling among participants.
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.