SynthesisFrontiers in public health2022
Does self-sampling for human papilloma virus testing have the potential to increase cervical cancer screening? An updated meta-analysis of observational studies and randomized clinical trials.
Synthesis in Frontiers in public health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 41 papers, 3 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
41 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Cervical cancer screening strategies in women 65 years and older in the human papillomavirus era: A systematic review and meta-analysis of human papillomavirus-based testing and self-sampling approaches.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2026Pooled it
- 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
- Human papillomavirus (HPV) infection and prevalence of colorectal cancer: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of global data.International journal of surgery (London, England) · 2026Pooled it
- 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
- Insights of Vietnamese American Women on Cervical Cancer Screening and HPV Self-Sampling.Journal of racial and ethnic health disparities · 2026Article
- Improving case-finding of long-term health problems in disadvantaged communities: A Policy-focused Evidence Brief.Public health in practice (Oxford, England) · 2026Article
- Perceptions of HPV Self-Collection for Cervical Cancer Screening Among Mobile Health Program Attendees.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2026Article
- Article
- Human Papillomavirus Infection and Cervical Cytology Among Vulnerable Women in Rome, Italy.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Cervical Cancer Screening in Transition: Global Challenges and Local Realities.International journal of women's health · 2026Review
- Understanding cancer screening experiences of Métis people in Alberta.International journal of circumpolar health · 2025Article
- Moroccan and Pakistani women's knowledge and perceptions on cervical cancer screening and HPV self-sampling acceptability in Catalonia, Spain: a mixed-methods study.BMC health services research · 2025Article
- Targeting under-screened women in cervical cancer: combining self-sampling and human papillomavirus testing with a strategic reminder plan.European journal of public health · 2025Article
- The role of non-medical providers in increasing access to cervical screening: a scoping review.BMJ global health · 2025Article
- Article
- Understanding HPV-Induced Cancers and Investigating the Barriers Faced by Low- and Middle-Income Countries in Prevention and Treatment.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Review
- Attitudes towards being offered a choice of self-sampling or clinician sampling for cervical screening: A cross-sectional survey of women taking part in a clinical validation of HPV self-collection devices.Journal of medical screening · 2025Article
- Improving the Sensitivity-Specificity Balance of Human Papillomavirus Testing on Self- and Clinician-Collected Samples in South Africa.JCO global oncology · 2025Article
- Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: A meta-analysis was conducted to examine the effectiveness of HPV self-sampling proposal on cervical cancer screening (CCS) uptake when compared with an invitation to have a clinician to collect the sample. Secondary outcomes were acceptability and preference of self-sampling compared to clinician-collected samples. Methods: The present systematic review and meta-analysis followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Studies examining the CCS uptake comparing self-sampling over invitation to be sampled by an healthcare professional and examining the proportion of women accepting or preferring self-sampling vs. clinician-collected sampling were included. The CCS uptake was also explored according to strategy of self-samplers' distribution, collection device type and screening status. Peters' test and Funnel Plot inspection were used to assess the publication bias. Quality of the studies was assessed through Cochrane Risk of Bias and NIH Quality Assessment tools. Results: One hundred fifty-four studies were globally identified, and 482,271 women were involved. Self-sampling procedures nearly doubled the probability (RR: 1.8; 95% CI: 1.7-2.0) of CCS uptake when compared with clinician-collected samples. The opt-out (RR: 2.1; 95% CI: 1.9-2.4) and the door-to-door (RR: 1.8; 95% CI: 1.6-2.0) did not statistically significant differ ( Conclusions: Self-sampling has the potential to increase participation of under-screened women in the CCS, in addition to the standard invitation to have a clinician to collect the sample. For small communities door-to-door distribution could be preferred to distribute the self-sampler while; for large communities opt-out strategies should be preferred over opt-in. Since no significant difference in acceptability and preference of device type was demonstrated among women, and swabs and brushes exhibited a potential stronger effect in improving CCS, these devices could be adopted.
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.