Trial reportSexual health2024
The influence of home versus clinic anal human papillomavirus sampling on high-resolution anoscopy uptake in the Prevent Anal Cancer Self-Swab Study.
Trial report in Sexual health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Impact of anal precancer screening on patient-reported outcomes among men-who-have-sex-with-men living with HIV: a scoping review.European journal of cancer prevention : the official journal of the European Cancer Prevention Organisation (ECP) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background Anal cancer disproportionately affects sexual and gender minority individuals living with HIV. High-resolution anoscopy (HRA) is an in-clinic procedure to detect precancerous anal lesions and cancer, yet prospective data on factors associated with HRA attendance are lacking. We examined whether anal HPV sampling at home versus in a clinic impacts HRA uptake and assessed HRA acceptability. Methods Sexual and gender minority individuals were randomised to home-based self-sampling or clinical sampling. All were asked to attend in-clinic HRA 1year later. We regressed HRA attendance on study arm using multivariable Poisson regression and assessed HRA acceptability using χ 2 tests. Results A total of 62.8% of 196 participants who engaged in screening attended HRA. Although not significant (P =0.13), a higher proportion of participants who engaged in clinic-based screening attended HRA (68.5%) compared to home-based participants (57.9%). Overall, HRA uptake was higher among participants with anal cytology history (aRR 1.40, 95% CI 1.07-1.82), and lower among participants preferring a versatile anal sex position versus insertive (aRR 0.70, 95% CI 0.53-0.91), but did not differ by race or HIV serostatus. In the clinic arm, persons living with HIV had lower HRA attendance (42.9%) versus HIV-negative participants (73.3%) (P =0.02) and Black non-Hispanic participants had lower HRA attendance (41.7%) than White non-Hispanic participants (73.1%), (P =0.04). No differences in attendance by race or HIV status were observed in the home arm. Conclusions HRA uptake differed significantly by race and HIV status in the clinic arm but not the home arm.
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.