ReviewEuropean journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology2024
A review of urinary HPV testing for cervical cancer management and HPV vaccine surveillance: rationale, strategies, and limitations.
Review in European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Accuracy of real-time PCR assays for human papillomavirus using urine samples: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2025Pooled it
- Agreement and Diagnostic Performance of Urinary HPV Testing Versus Clinician-Collected Cervico-Vaginal Sampling: A Prospective Cross-Sectional Study in a Romanian Cohort.Medical sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- A United States study of self-collected urine vs clinician-collected cervical sample for HPV and cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade two or worse detection: Cross-sectional agreement and diagnostic accuracy study.Preventive medicine reports · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Human papillomavirus (HPV) infections are the leading cause of cervical cancer, the fourth most common cancer among women worldwide. Despite concerted efforts to combat this preventable disease through HPV vaccination and cancer screening have helped reduce morbidity and mortality levels, the burden persists in both developing and developed countries due to insufficient vaccination and screening coverage. Urinary HPV testing has emerged as a noninvasive detection method, offering significant advantages in cervical cancer management and vaccine surveillance. Notably, it boasts high acceptance rates, ease of self-collection, user-friendly implementation, and relatively low cost. Various urinary HPV detection methods have been explored, predominantly relying on nucleic acid amplification and signal amplification, targeting a variety of biomarkers in urine, such as HPV DNA, RNA, and oncoproteins. Existing literature underscores urine as a promising specimen for HPV testing, demonstrating comparable detection performance to cervical and vaginal samples in several studies. However, the lack of standardized and authoritative protocols in sample collection, storage, preparation, DNA extraction, and amplification necessitates further evaluation for the comprehensive utilization of urinary HPV testing in clinical and epidemiological settings. This study aims to review pertinent publications and offer insights into the rationale, common strategies, and limitations of urinary HPV testing, with the ultimate goal of maximizing its utility in practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39400675What 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.