ArticleInternational journal of clinical oncology2022
Human papillomavirus testing and cytology using physician-collected uterine cervical samples vs. self-collected vaginal samples and urine samples.
Article in International journal of clinical oncology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 2 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Human papillomavirus self-sampling in Asia: a systematic review.Frontiers in microbiology · 2025Pooled it
- Review
- Unlocking early detection: How screening can save lives from cervical cancer.World journal of clinical oncology · 2025Article
- A review of urinary HPV testing for cervical cancer management and HPV vaccine surveillance: rationale, strategies, and limitations.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2024Review
- Variables that impact HPV test accuracy during vaginal self collection workflow for cervical cancer screening.Gynecologic oncology reports · 2024Review
- Mailing human papillomavirus self-sampling kits to women under-screened for cervical cancer improved detection in cervical cancer screening in a general population study in Japan.BMC public health · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHuman papillomavirus (HPV) testing using self-collected vaginal samples and urine samples is convenient and effective for improving the screening rate. But, to serve as an alternative cervical cancer screening technique, such tests must offer sensitivity equivalent to the HPV testing of physician-collected cervical samples. To examine the effectiveness of HPV testing using self-collected samples and urine samples, we compared the results of HPV testing using these samples with those of HPV testing using physician-collected samples and cytological examinations.
methodsThe study population included 300 women (age: 20-50 years) with abnormal cervical cytology. The results of HPV testing using self-collected samples and urine samples and physician-collected samples and cervical cytology were compared.
resultsFor all HPV types, the κ-value was 0.773 for physician- and self-collected samples and 0.575 for physician-collected and urine samples. The κ-value for HPV type 16-positive samples was 0.988 for physician- and self-collected samples and 0.896 for physician-collected and urine samples. The κ-value for HPV type 18-positive samples was 0.856 for physician- and self-collected samples and 0.831 for physician-collected and urine samples. For other HPV types, the value was 0.809 for physician- and self-collected samples and 0.617 for physician-collected and urine samples.
conclusionsThe obtained results were consistent between physician- and self-collected samples as well as between physician-collected and urine samples. Considering that the agreement rate was particularly high for the high-risk HPV types 16 and 18, HPV testing using physician-collected samples, self-collected samples, and urine samples was equally effective for the types with high carcinogenicity.
Indexed as
Identifiers
36089619What 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.