Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36797261›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2023

Validity and acceptance of self vs conventional sampling for the analysis of human papillomavirus and Pap smear.

M J Gibert, C Sánchez-Contador, G Artigues

Erratum issuedOpen access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.0field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

M J GibertCoordinació de l'Estratègia de Càncer de les Illes Balears, Directorate General of Public Health, Balearic Health Ministry, 07010, Palma de Mallorca, Illes Balears, Spain. mjose.gibert@ssib.es.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3732-9892
C Sánchez-ContadorCoordinació de l'Estratègia de Càncer de les Illes Balears, Directorate General of Public Health, Balearic Health Ministry, 07010, Palma de Mallorca, Illes Balears, Spain.
G ArtiguesCoordinació de l'Estratègia de Càncer de les Illes Balears, Directorate General of Public Health, Balearic Health Ministry, 07010, Palma de Mallorca, Illes Balears, Spain.
Health Research Institute of the Balearic Islands · ES

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Papillomavirus InfectionsSelf-TestingUterine Cervical NeoplasmsCross-Sectional StudiesEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHuman Papillomavirus VirusesHumansPapanicolaou TestPapillomaviridaeSpecimen HandlingVaginal Smears

Identifiers

PMID36797261
PMCPMC9933799
OpenAlexW4321080537

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.