ArticleCancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology2023
Sociodemographic Characteristics and Screening Outcomes of Women Preferring Self-Sampling in the Dutch Cervical Cancer Screening Programme: A Population-Based Study.
Article in Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 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
19 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 26 citations in OpenAlex.
- Offering HPV self-sampling kits: an updated meta-analysis of the effectiveness of strategies to increase participation in cervical cancer screening.British journal of cancer · 2023Pooled it
- Comparison of three different hpv self-sampling tools - a subanalysis of the prospective, randomized hannover self-collection study.Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2026Trial
- Human Papillomavirus (HPV) Screening With Universal Access to Vaginal Self-Testing: Outcomes of an Implementation Trial.BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology · 2025Trial
- The Dutch Nationwide Pathology Databank and its central role in health research.Journal of pathology informatics · 2026Article
- Indicators to identify cancer screening providers with suboptimal case detection: A scoping review.International journal of cancer · 2026Article
- Evidence from Europe on implementation, participation and performance of self-collection for cervical cancer screening.Future oncology (London, England) · 2026Review
- Understanding preferences for self-sampling in a national cervical screening programme: a protocol for a discrete choice experiment.BMJ open · 2025Article
- 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
- Impact of mode of offer of self-sampling to people overdue cervical screening on screening participation: a randomised controlled trial.EClinicalMedicine · 2025Article
- Cervical cancer screening: Sharing best practices and addressing common challenges in cervical cancer screening programs.International journal of cancer · 2025Article
- Building the foundations for an organized population-based cervical cancer screening program with primary HPV self-sampling in Catalonia, Spain: findings from a pilot implementation study.Frontiers in medicine · 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
- Article
- The levels of women's awareness, experience, acceptability and preference for Vaginal Human Papillomavirus (HPV) self-sampling in three provinces of China: a cross-sectional study.BMC women's health · 2024Article
- Strategies to accelerate the elimination of cervical cancer in British Columbia, Canada: a modelling study.CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2024Article
- Predictable changes in the accuracy of human papillomavirus tests after vaccination: review with implications for performance monitoring in cervical screening.British journal of cancer · 2024Review
- Preliminary Results of Feasibility and Acceptability of Self-Collection for Cervical Screening in Italian Women.Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Widening the offer of human papillomavirus self-sampling to all women eligible for cervical screening: Make haste slowly.International journal of cancer · 2023Review
- HPV-Based Self-Sampling in Cervical Cancer Screening: An Updated Review of the Current Evidence in the Literature.Cancers · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
13 authors at 8 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn the Netherlands, lower high-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) positivity but higher cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) 2+ detection were found in self-collected compared with clinician-collected samples. To investigate the possible reason for these differences, we compared sociodemographic and screening characteristics of women and related these to screening outcomes.
methodsWe extracted data from PALGA on all primary hrHPV screens and associated follow-up tests for 857,866 screened women, invited in 2017 and 2018. We linked these data with sociodemographic data from Statistics Netherlands. Logistic regression was performed for hrHPV positivity and CIN 2+/3+ detection.
resultsOut of the 857,866 women, 6.8% chose to use a self-sampling device. A higher proportion of self-sampling users was ages 30 to 35 years, was not previously screened, was living in a one-person household, or was the breadwinner in the household. After adjustment for these factors self-sampling had lower hrHPV positivity (aOR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.63-0.68)) as compared with clinician-collected sampling, as well as lower odds of CIN 2+ (aOR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.70-0.82) and CIN 3+ (aOR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.78-0.95) detection.
conclusionsIt is likely that the observed differences between the two sampling methods are not only related to sociodemographic differences, but related to differences in screening test accuracy and/or background risk. IMPACT: Self-sampling can be used for targeting underscreened women, as a more convenient screening tool. Further investigation is required to evaluate how to implement self-sampling, when it is used as a primary instrument in routine screening. See related commentary by Arbyn et al., p. 159.
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.