SynthesisBritish journal of cancer2023
Offering HPV self-sampling kits: an updated meta-analysis of the effectiveness of strategies to increase participation in cervical cancer screening.
Synthesis in British journal of cancer, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 101 papers, 7 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
101 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 118 citations in OpenAlex.
- What are the views and experiences of human papillomavirus (HPV) self-sampling for cervical screening in high-income countries? A qualitative systematic review using the Theoretical Domains Framework.BMC public health · 2026Pooled it
- Cost-effectiveness studies evaluating HPV self-sampling for cervical cancer screening - a systematic review.BMC health services research · 2026Pooled it
- Identifying optimum implementation for human papillomavirus self-sampling in underserved communities: A systematic review.Journal of medical screening · 2025Pooled it
- [Cancer prevention recommendations: Update 2024].Atencion primaria · 2024Guideline
- Electronic Health Interventions and Cervical Cancer Screening: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of medical Internet research · 2024Pooled it
- Invitation strategy of vaginal HPV self-sampling to improve participation in cervical cancer screening: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials.BMC public health · 2024Pooled it
- Improving Breast Cancer Outcomes by Enhanced Activities in Early Detection and Diagnosis: An Umbrella Review and Meta-Analyses of Randomised Controlled Trials in High-Income Contexts With Universal Healthcare Coverage.Cancer control : journal of the Moffitt Cancer CenterPooled it
- Introducing self-sampling for cervical cancer screening: A regional implementation study in Pirkanmaa, Finland.Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica · 2026Trial
- Effect of Self-Sampling HPV DNA Testing on Cervical Cancer Screening in Singapore's Primary Care: Pragmatic Randomized Controlled Trial.Annals of family medicine · 2026Trial
- Comparison of three different hpv self-sampling tools - a subanalysis of the prospective, randomized hannover self-collection study.Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2026Trial
- Trial
- Promoting cervical cancer screening via a mailed HPV self-collection kit: Reactions from screeners and non-screeners.Patient education and counseling · 2026Trial
- Mailing Vaginal or Urine Self-Sampling Kits versus Conventional Invitation Letters: A Randomized Trial to Assess the Effect on Cervical Cancer Screening Attendance.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2025Trial
- Acceptability, feasibility and appropriateness of integrating HPV self-sampling for cervical cancer screening into voluntary family planning services in Malawi.BMC public health · 2025Trial
- 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
- Participation and relative cost of attendance by direct-mail compared to opt-in invitation strategy for HPV self-sampling targeting cervical screening non-attenders: A large-scale, randomized, pragmatic study.International journal of cancer · 2025Trial
- A Mail-Based HPV Self-Collection Program to Increase Cervical Cancer Screening in Appalachia: Results of a Group Randomized Trial.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2025Trial
- Increasing coverage in cervical and colorectal cancer screening by leveraging attendance at breast cancer screening: A cluster-randomised, crossover trial.PLoS medicine · 2024Trial
- Trial
- Effect of HPV self-collection kits on cervical cancer screening uptake among under-screened women from low-income US backgrounds (MBMT-3): a phase 3, open-label, randomised controlled trial.The Lancet. Public health · 2023Trial
41 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundHuman papillomavirus (HPV) testing on self-samples represents a great opportunity to increase cervical cancer screening uptake among under-screened women.
methodsA systematic review and meta-analysis on randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were performed to update the evidence on the efficacy of strategies for offering self-sampling kits for HPV testing compared to conventional invitations and to compare different self-sampling invitation scenarios. Four experimental invitational scenarios were considered. Women in the control group were invited for screening according to existing practice: collection of a cervical specimen by a healthcare professional. Random-effects models were used to pool proportions, relative participation rates and absolute participation differences.
resultsThirty-three trials were included. In the intention-to-treat analysis, all self-sampling invitation scenarios were more effective in reaching under-screened women compared to controls. Pooled participation difference (PD) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for experimental vs. control was 13.2% (95% CI = 11.0-15.3%) for mail-to-all, 4.4% (95% CI = 1.2-7.6%) for opt-in, 39.1% (95% CI = 8.4-69.9%) for community mobilisation & outreach and 28.1% (23.5-32.7%) for offer at healthcare service. PD for the comparison opt-in vs. mail-to-all, assessed in nine trials, was -8.2% (95% CI = -10.8 to -5.7%). DISCUSSION: Overall, screening participation was higher among women invited for self-sampling compared to control, regardless of the invitation strategy used. Opt-in strategies were less effective than send-to-all strategies.
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.