ArticleAsian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP2022
Results of Self-Sampling Methodology Impression for Cervical Cancer Screening in Mongolia.
Article in Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Human papillomavirus self-sampling in Asia: a systematic review.Frontiers in microbiology · 2025Pooled it
- Acceptance of Self-Sampling and Knowledge about Human Papillomavirus among Women in Mongolia.Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP · 2024Article
- Comment on Self-Sampling Methodology Impression for Cervical Cancer Screening.Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveMongolia is a sparsely populated country; however, almost fifty percent of the population lives in the capital city. Medical care services and exceptionally well-organized cervical cancer screening tests are limited in remote areas. To improve cervical cancer screening test coverage, we compared the interest between physicians taking samples and self-sampling among the attendees in this study.
methodsA total of 175 women participated in this study. The hundred twelve women visited the Gynecology ward, and the sixty-three women were provided with the cervical self-sampling test kit and filled out a questionnaire. Subsequently, the acceptability of physician taking and self-sampling were evaluated using a questionnaire. All specimens were processed using the TACAS LBC system, and the quality of samples was tested by cytology.
resultsRegarding the acceptability of self-sampling, the selections for subsequent screening were 36% self-sampling and 64% gynecologist-sampling methods. The acceptability rates were higher in the remote areas than the urban areas. However, 64% of the participants lacked knowledge that the causative agent of cervical cancer is the human papillomavirus, and 66.9% mainly were sexually transmitted. In addition, 82.3% of the women surveyed were unaware that there was a vaccine to prevent cervical cancer, but 88.6% wanted to be vaccinated. Of most women, 44.4% chose self-sampling due to no embarrassment in the gynecological examination. The self-sampling preferences were dominant in the old age group (61.6%). The cytology satisfaction rate in physician-sampling (99.1%) was higher than in the self-sampling group (69.8%).
conclusionThe Implementation of the self-sampling tool may be considered a primary screening. The self-sampling test can adopt into the early screening program and may increase the coverage of the screening program and improve the quality.
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.