Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37349822›Full record

SynthesisSystematic reviews2023

HPV self-sampling versus healthcare provider collection on the effect of cervical cancer screening uptake and costs in LMIC: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Selamawit F Mekuria, Sydney Timmermans, Christer Borgfeldt, Mats Jerkeman, Pia Johansson, Ditte Søndergaard Linde

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Systematic reviews, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

23 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Selamawit F MekuriaDivision of Oncology, Lund University, 22185, Lund, Sweden. selamawit.mekuria@med.lu.se.ORCID 0000-0003-1120-1054
Sydney TimmermansDepartment of Biomedical Sciences, University of Guelph, Guelph, Canada.
Christer BorgfeldtDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Lund University, Lund, Sweden.
Mats JerkemanDivision of Oncology, Lund University, 22185, Lund, Sweden.
Pia JohanssonSchool of Health and Welfare, Halmstad University, Halmstad, Sweden.
Ditte Søndergaard LindeDepartment of Clinical Research, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCervical cancer is a major global health issue, with 89% of cases occurring in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Human papillomavirus (HPV) self-sampling tests have been suggested as an innovative way to improve cervical cancer screening uptake and reduce the burden of disease. The objective of this review was to examine the effect of HPV self-sampling on screening uptake compared to any healthcare provider sampling in LMICs. The secondary objective was to estimate the associated costs of the various screening methods.

methodStudies were retrieved from PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, CENTRAL (by Cochrane), Web of Science, and ClinicalTrials.gov up until April 14, 2022, and a total of six trials were included in the review. Meta-analyses were performed mainly using the inverse variance method, by pooling effect estimates of the proportion of women who accepted the screening method offered. Subgroup analyses were done comparing low- and middle-income countries, as well as low- and high-risk bias studies. Heterogeneity of the data was assessed using I

resultsWe found a small but significant difference in screening uptake in our primary analysis: RR 1.11 (95% CI: 1.10-1.11; I

conclusionOur review indicates that self-sampling improves screening uptake, particularly in low-income countries; however, to this date, there remain few trials and associated cost data. We recommend further studies with proper cost data be conducted to guide the incorporation of HPV self-sampling into national cervical cancer screening guidelines in low- and middle-income countries. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42020218504.

Indexed as

Papillomavirus InfectionsUterine Cervical NeoplasmsDeveloping CountriesEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHealth PersonnelHumansMass Screening

Identifiers

PMID37349822
PMCPMC10286394

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.