SynthesisBMC public health2024
Invitation strategy of vaginal HPV self-sampling to improve participation in cervical cancer screening: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials.
Synthesis in BMC public health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Trial
- Participation and Follow-Up Compliance in Cervical Cancer Screening According to Delivery Strategy for HPV Self-Collection: A Community Trial in Underserved Colombian Areas.Cancer medicine · 2026Article
- Adherence to Breast, Cervical, and Colorectal Cancer Screening Among Women in Spain: Evidence from the 2023 Spanish Health Survey.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Effect of direct mailing self-sampling kits on participation in the Dutch hrHPV-based cervical screening programme: a population-based study.The Lancet regional health. Europe · 2026Article
- Enhancing Cervical Cancer Screening Among Northern Thai Women: Satisfaction with Self-Collected HPV DNA Testing under the National Program.Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP · 2026Article
- Article
- Self-collected versus clinician-collected human papillomavirus samples.Revista da Associacao Medica Brasileira (1992) · 2026Article
- Factors associated with women's choice for mode of cervical sampling in future cervical cancer screening.PloS one · 2026Article
- HPV testing alone as a test of cure after treatment with cervical loop excision: a retrospective register-based cohort study.Infectious agents and cancer · 2025Article
- Age-period-cohort analysis of global, regional, and national cervical cancer prevalence trends in women of childbearing age (15-49 years), 1990-2021.BMC women's health · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHuman papillomavirus (HPV) self-sampling is recognized as a feasible option for enhancing screening for cervical cancer, particularly among hard-to-reach women. The magnitude of the effectiveness of screening participation under different invitation strategies was reported. This review seeks to compare the effectiveness of invitation strategies in increasing screening participation of HPV self-sampling across diverse study settings.
methodsA systematic literature search was conducted in Embase, MEDLINE, and PubMed in April 2023. Articles were included if (1) their target participants were aged between 25 and 70 years; (2) participants in the intervention arm were randomized to receive HPV self-sampling devices through various invitation strategies; (3) participants in the control arm who either received invitations for cervical cancer screening other than HPV self-sampling or opportunistic screening as usual care; (4) studies that provided sufficient data on screening participation in HPV self-sampling as outcome measured. The study design of the included articles was limited to randomized controlled trials.
resultsA total of 15 articles were included in this review. Invitation strategies of disseminating HPV self-sampling devices included opt-out and opt-in. Meta-analysis revealed screening participation in the self-sampling group was significantly greater than control arm (OR 3.43, 95% CI 1.59-7.38), irrespective of the invitation strategy employed. Among invitation strategies, opt-out appeared to be more effective on increasing screening participation, compared to control and opt-in strategy (opt-out vs. control OR 3.91, 95% CI 1.82-8.42; opt-in vs. control OR 1.34, 95% CI 0.28-6.39).
conclusionsOpt-out strategy is more successful at improving screening participation compared to opt-in and routine invitation to cervical screening. It is therefore a promising way to improve participation in cervical cancer screening. The findings of this review provide important inputs to optimize strategies for inviting women to participate in vaginal HPV self-sampling across the study setting, thus improving participation in 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.