Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39787107›Full record

Trial reportPloS one2025

Self- versus clinician-collected swabs in anal cancer screening: A clinical trial.

Clare E F Dyer, Fengyi Jin, Jennifer M Roberts, I Mary Poynten, Annabelle Farnsworth, Leon P McNally, Philip H Cunningham, Andrew E Grulich, Richard J Hillman

Abstract readRandomized Controlled TrialComparative Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Impact of anal precancer screening on patient-reported outcomes among men-who-have-sex-with-men living with HIV: a scoping review.European journal of cancer prevention : the official journal of the European Cancer Prevention Organisation (ECP) · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Clare E F DyerKirby Institute, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-6950-4029
Fengyi JinKirby Institute, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Jennifer M RobertsDouglass Hanly Moir Pathology, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
I Mary PoyntenKirby Institute, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Annabelle FarnsworthDouglass Hanly Moir Pathology, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Leon P McNallyNSW State Reference Laboratory for HIV, St Vincent's Hospital, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Philip H CunninghamSt Vincent's Centre for Applied Medical Research, St Vincent's Hospital, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Andrew E GrulichKirby Institute, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Richard J HillmanKirby Institute, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRisk of anal cancer is high in certain populations and screening involves collection of anal swabs for HPV DNA and/or cytology testing. However, barriers exist, such as the need for an intimate examination, and stigma around HIV status, sexual orientation, and sexual practices. Self-collected anal swabs (SCA) are a proposed alternative to clinician-collected swabs (CCA) to overcome these barriers.

methodsParticipants were order-randomised to undergo SCA or CCA first, with a second swab taken immediately afterwards. Sample adequacy was assessed for HPV DNA and cytology testing. CCA was used as the gold standard to calculate sensitivity and specificity of SCA for cytology and HPV results. Acceptability of swab collection was assessed following the procedure.

resultsThere was no significant difference in sample validity for HPV DNA testing between SCA and CCA (p = 0.564). Concordance was >90% for detection of any HR-HPV and HPV16. There was no significant difference in cellular adequacy for cytological testing between SCA and CCA, (p = 0.162). Concordance for cytologic prediction was 88.2% for any cytologic abnormality. Almost half (48.5%) of participants expressed no preference for SCA versus CCA; 15.2% preferred SCA and 35.4% CCA.

conclusionsSCA may be an acceptable and feasible alternative to CCA for detecting HPV and cytological abnormalities in a clinic population.

Indexed as

Anus NeoplasmsEarly Detection of CancerSpecimen HandlingAdultAgedDNA, ViralFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPapillomaviridaePapillomavirus InfectionsSensitivity and SpecificityDNA, Viral

Identifiers

PMID39787107
PMCPMC11717180

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.