ArticleHealthcare (Basel, Switzerland)2022
Evaluation of Urine and Vaginal Self-Sampling versus Clinician-Based Sampling for Cervical Cancer Screening: A Field Comparison of the Acceptability of Three Sampling Tests in a Rural Community of Cuenca, Ecuador.
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 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Considerations for the design of impactful citizen-science projects in microbiome research.Nature protocols · 2026Review
- Scoping review on the perceptions and attitude of women on methods for collecting cervicovaginal samples for Human Papillomavirus testing in Sub-Saharan Africa.PLOS global public health · 2025Article
- Quantification of HPV16 E7 Oncoproteins in Urine Specimens from Women with Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia.Microorganisms · 2024Article
- "Barriers and Advantages of Self-Sampling Tests, for HPV Diagnosis: A Qualitative Field Experience Before Implementation in a Rural Community in Ecuador".International journal of women's health · 2024Article
- Human papillomavirus self-sampling versus provider-sampling in low- and middle-income countries: a scoping review of accuracy, acceptability, cost, uptake, and equity.Frontiers in public health · 2024Article
- Assessing the Acceptability of a Vaginal Self-Sampling Device in a Rural Parish of Cuenca, Ecuador.Journal of primary care & community healthArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 5 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Self-sampling methods for HPV testing have been demonstrated to be highly sensitive and specific. The implementation of these methods in settings with a lack of infrastructure or medical attention has been shown to increase the coverage of cervical cancer screening and detect cervical abnormalities in the early stages. The aim of this study is to compare the acceptability of urine and vaginal self-sampling methods versus clinician sampling among rural women. A total of 120 women participated. Each participant self-collected urine and vaginal samples and underwent clinician sampling for Pap smear and HPV testing. After the sample collection, a questionnaire to qualify the device, technique, and individual acceptability was applied, and the additional overall preference of three sample tests was evaluated. Results: The characteristics of the participants were as follows: median age of 35 years; 40.8% were married; 46.7% had a primary level of education; median age of sexual onset of 17.6 years. Compared with clinician sampling, both vaginal self-sampling, OR 20.12 (7.67-52.8), and urine sampling, OR 16.63 (6.79-40.72), were more comfortable; granted more privacy: vaginal self-sampling, OR 8.07 (3.44-18.93), and urine sampling, OR 19.5 (5.83-65.21); were less painful: vaginal self-sampling, OR 0.07 (0.03-0.16), and urine sampling, OR 0.01 (0-0.06); were less difficult to apply: vaginal self-sampling, OR 0.16 (0.07-0.34), and urine sampling, OR 0.05 (0.01-0.17). The overall preference has shown an advantage for vaginal self-sampling, OR 4.97 (2.71-9.12). No statistically significant preference was demonstrated with urine self-sampling versus clinician sampling. Conclusions: Self-sampling methods have a high acceptance in rural communities. Doubts on the reliability of self-sampling often appear to be a limitation on its acceptability. However, the training and education of the community could increase the uptake of these methods.
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.