ReviewGynecologic oncology reports2024
Variables that impact HPV test accuracy during vaginal self collection workflow for cervical cancer screening.
Review in Gynecologic oncology reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Self-collection for primary HPV screening using dry swabs: a review of clinical performance, laboratory considerations, and patient preferences.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2026Review
- Comparative efficacy, feasibility and acceptability of HPV DNA testing on first-void urine versus self-collected vaginal samples: a real-world study in a resource-limited setting.BMJ global health · 2026Article
- Diagnostic utility of cell block preparations from liquid-based cytology in cervical lesions: A comparative retrospective analysis.CytoJournal · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Vaginal self collection (SC) is safe and effective for human papillomavirus (HPV) testing and can increase cervical cancer screening coverage for underserved women. To better understand the impact of SC methodology on HPV test outcomes, empirical testing was conducted using different swab collection workflows. Deposition of the collection swab into resuspension buffer resulted in a 2.4-cycle reduction in threshold detection of human beta-hemoglobin during PCR when compared to "swirl-and-toss". In addition, reducing the swab resuspension volume from 10 mL to 3 mL resulted in a 2.6-cycle reduction in threshold detection of human beta-globin. A systematic literature search (01/01/2020 to 08/02/2023) of Ovid Medline and Embase, followed by data extraction and analysis, was conducted to further assess the impact of resuspension volume on performance following SC. HPV test performance for SC, relative to clinician collection (CC), was calculated for detection of cervical pre-cancer. Data were stratified by the resuspension volume ratio of SC to CC being either ≥ 1.0 or < 1.0. SC with a volume ratio of ≥ 1.0 and < 1.0 had a relative ≥ CIN2 sensitivity of 92.0 % (95 % CI: 88.0, 96.0) and 97.0 % (95 % CI: 94.0, 100), respectively. Taken together, these results suggest that SC conditions can be modified to optimize sample recovery and performance, as part of cervical cancer screening.
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.