ArticleScientific reports2023
Validity and acceptance of self vs conventional sampling for the analysis of human papillomavirus and Pap smear.
Article in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Assessment of HPV screening modalities within primary care: a systematic review.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Pooled it
- Community-Based HPV Self-Sampling to Enhance Access to Cervical Cancer Prevention: A Continuum-of-Care Model from Urban Nepal.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2026Article
- Advancing the elimination of cervical cancer across Africa.Nature communications · 2026Review
- Self-collection for primary HPV screening using dry swabs: a review of clinical performance, laboratory considerations, and patient preferences.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2026Review
- Standardizing vaginal microbial profiling: evaluating swab materials, storage conditions, and host DNA depletion strategies.BMC microbiology · 2026Article
- The cost-saving impact of human papillomavirus self-sampling for cervical cancer screening in women workers at the manufacturing sector in Ciudad Juárez, Chihuahua, Mexico.PLOS global public health · 2026Article
- Probiotic ice cream influences gut and vaginal microbiota in women at high risk of preterm birth: a randomized controlled study.Maternal health, neonatology and perinatology · 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
- Advancing Cervical Cancer Prevention Equity: Innovations in Self-Sampling and Digital Health Technologies Across Healthcare Settings.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Addressing COVID-19 Screening Delays: The Impact of HPV Self-Sampling on Non-Attenders in a Cervical Cancer Screening Program.Cancers · 2024Article
- Performance of HPV Self-Sample Collected by a Novel Kit in Comparison with Clinician Collected Sample for Cervical Cancer Screening.Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP · 2024Article
- Comparison of diagnostic accuracy and acceptability of self-sampling devices for human Papillomavirus detection: A systematic review.Preventive medicine reports · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The newest high-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) detection techniques were included for cervical cancer primary screening under the Spanish National Health System in 2019. These analyses allow changing population approaches to foster adherence to screening. Therefore, the validity of self versus conventional sampling for HPV and cytology analyses was appraised. Women's preferences concerning samples and devices were also evaluated. This is a diagnostic accuracy cross-sectional study among 120 women recruited from a colposcopy clinic at a general hospital in Illes Balears, Spain. Participants were given written information and asked for a self-sample. One of two sets containing two devices each were handed. One set was transported dry and the second in liquid medium. Next, clinicians collected vaginal samples that were our gold standards. The agreement between both techniques was examined with the Kappa coefficient (κ). Self-sampling evaluation and preferences for different vaginal devices were also surveyed. The agreement between self and conventional samples concerning HPV positivity was very good (κ 0.86 for Mía by XytoTest® and 0.83 for Viba-Brush®) or reasonable (κ 0.73 for Iune and 0.68 for viscose swab). Pap smears from self-samples exhibited moderate agreement (κ 0.41 for Mía® and 0.51 for Viba-Brush® respectively) for negative versus ASC-US and worse results. Most of the participants considered self-sampling as beneficial (110 or 91.7%) and the advantages were, in decreasing order, scheduling, comfort, intimacy and less fear for pain or disturbance. The priority of choice for the devices was Mía® and viscose swab (chosen in first or second place) in opposition to Iune and Viba-Brush® (chosen in third or fourth place). If Viba-Brush® was to collect the best quality samples, 108 women (94.7%) switched their decisions. Our agreement between self and conventional samples was very good or reasonable for HPV, with the best values for devices in a liquid medium, and moderate for cytology. Even so, reflex cytology on self-samples is a valuable tool in promoting adherence. Self-sampling was widely accepted for smooth and thin devices. However, there is no resistance to change to others if a higher quality of the sample is obtained.
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.