ArticleDiagnostic cytopathology2025
Poor Performance of Applicator Tampon-Based Self-Collection for Liquid-Based Cytology Among Women Attending a Tertiary Hospital in South Africa.
Article in Diagnostic cytopathology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Turnaround Time Trends in Cervical Cytology Screening in South Africa, 2005-2023.Diagnostic cytopathology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe South African Cervical Cancer Prevention and Control Policy was updated in June 2017, recommending liquid-based cytology (LBC) as the preferred screening method and the investigation of self-sampling for cervical cancer screening.
aimTo compare the performance of the Self Collection Cervical Health Screening Kit [SelfCerv (applicator tampon)] to the Cervex-Brush Combi for cytology screening. The study further aimed to compare high-risk (hr-) human papillomavirus (HPV) and LBC test results from both methods.
methodsThe study included 446 paired samples, comprising self-collected (SelfCerv) and healthcare provider-collected (Cervex-Brush Combi) samples from women aged ≥ 18 years attending gynaecology outpatient clinics at a tertiary hospital in Pretoria, South Africa. LBC slides were prepared using the ThinPrep 5000 processor and manually stained with Hematoxylin and Eosin (H&E). Detection of 14 hr-HPV types was performed using the Abbott RealTime HR-HPV assay. Statistical analyses were performed using STATA version 17.0 (Stata Corp., College Station, Texas, USA).
resultsA statistically significant difference in cervical cytology detection between the two methods was observed (p = 0.0025). The Cervex-Brush Combi was more effective in collecting endocervical cells (73.4%; 95% CI: 69.0-77.9) compared to the SelfCerv applicator tampon (7.3%; 95% CI: 4.7-9.9); (p < 0.001). Cytological abnormalities were detected in 65.4% (136/208) of participants who tested positive for hr-HPV by healthcare provider sampling compared to 40.8% (84/206) by self-sampling. A fair agreement (κ: 0.35) with a concordance rate of 96.2% (95% CI: 94.4-98.0) was observed for specimen adequacy and diagnosis parameters [κ: 0.34, with a concordance rate of 67.7% (95% CI: 63.2-72.1)] between the two methods.
conclusionThe findings of this study do not support the implementation of applicator tampon-based self-collection as a method for cytology-based 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.