ArticleObstetrics & gynecology science2024
A comparative study of self-collected versus clinician-collected specimens in detecting high-risk HPV infection: a prospective cross-sectional study.
Article in Obstetrics & gynecology science, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- HPV self-sampling and physician-collected sampling for detection of precancerous lesions of the cervix.Bioinformation · 2026Article
- Concordance and acceptability of a novel human papillomavirus self-collection tool for cervical cancer screening in economically developed regions: a prospective cohort study in Shanghai, China.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- The acceptability, safety, and performance of primary cervical screening through self-collected vaginal samples in an urban teaching hospital antenatal clinic setting.PLOS global public 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThe primary objective of this study was to compare the detection rate of high-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) infection between self-sampling to collect vaginal specimens and clinician sampling to collect cervical specimens, as well as the correlation between the two techniques. The secondary objective was to assess satisfaction with selfsampling for HPV testing.
methodsFrom October 2021 to September 2022, women positive for HPV 16/18 and other 12 high-risk HPV genotypes and cytological Ascus were enrolled. All participants were instructed on the method for self-collection of HPV samples. Self-collected vaginal samples and clinician-collected cervical samples were subjected to HPV DNA typing.
resultsPaired self- and clinician-collected specimens were obtained from 104 women with positive HPV-positive results. The detection rate of high-risk HPV infection was comparable between the two techniques: 79/98 (80.6%) vs. 81/98 (82.7%) for the self-sampling and clinician-sampling techniques, respectively (McNemar's test; P=0.774). The agreement in detecting HPV infection was substantial, with a kappa coefficient of 0.75. More than 90% of the participants rated self-collection as satisfactory to very satisfactory because of its convenience and safety. Regarding methods of further follow-up, 51% of the participants chose self-sampling, whereas the remaining participants preferred collection by clinicians. No intervention-related complications were observed.
conclusionThe self-sampling technique for HPV testing was as effective as the clinician-sampling technique, and both techniques were substantially correlated in detecting high-risk HPV infection. The self-sampling method appears to be highly satisfactory and may provide better compliance for the detection of cervical HPV infection.
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.