ArticleCureus2024
Adequacy and Acceptability of the Self-Collected Anal Pap Smear in People Living With Human Immunodeficiency Virus in the Infectious Diseases Clinic.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Anal Pap smears are imperative to screening for human papillomavirus (HPV)-associated anal squamous cell cancers, particularly in patients living with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) given a higher incidence of disease. Self-collection of specimens may be favored by patients and more feasible to collect, increasing screening. Methods This was a single-center observational cohort study at a single academic medical center Infectious Diseases clinic from October to December 2021. We aimed to improve compliance of anal Pap collection documentation of "self-collected" versus "physician-collected" as well as verify if self-collected specimens (SCS) were adequate for interpretation equivalent to physician-collected specimens (PCS). Additionally, we aimed to evaluate patient and provider satisfaction with self-collected anal Paps. Results Sixty anal Pap smears were available for evaluation. The rate of documentation of the collection method (self-collected vs. physician-collected) was 88% during the intervention. A total of 75% of patients opted for self-collection, and 35/45 (78%) of these samples were adequate for interpretation. There was no difference in the adequacy of specimen (the ability of a cytopathologist to interpret the specimen) between the SCS and PCS. Conclusion Limited prior data suggest self-collected anal Pap specimens are adequate for interpretation only slightly less often than PCS. In our small cohort, there was no statistically significant difference between collection methods. Satisfaction with self-collection of specimens was high for both patients and providers. Additional validation in more diverse/larger clinical settings may be helpful to support this practice.
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.