ArticleScientific reports2025
Diagnostic accuracy of human papillomavirus testing on self-collected samples among women referred for colposcopy.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Experimental Analysis of HPV16 L1/L2 Chimeric VLP Internalization by Human Peripheral Blood Leukocytes.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Article
- Development of a novel, urine-based high-risk human papillomavirus polymerase chain reaction test to predict cervical intraepithelial neoplasia abnormalities associated with cervical cancer.Microbiology spectrum · 2026Article
- HPV self-sampling and physician-collected sampling for detection of precancerous lesions of the cervix.Bioinformation · 2026Article
- Review
- Progress toward cervical cancer elimination: global disparities and China's contributions.Cancer biology & medicine · 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To assess the diagnostic accuracy of self-collected urine and vaginal samples for the identification of precancerous cervical lesions in the referral population using high-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) assays based on polymerase chain reaction (PCR). It was a prospective study carried out in China from June 2021 to March 2022. The vaginal and urine samples were collected and analyzed by using a newly developed specific hrHPV PCR test, and matched cervical samples were analyzed by using an approved hrHPV DNA test. The primary outcomes were sensitivity for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 2 or greater (CIN2 +). The secondary outcome was the accuracy of hrHPV findings in urine and vaginal samples compared to cervical samples. A total of 1,701 women were recruited with 113 women excluded. Among 1,588 qualified participants, a total of 203 cases of the CIN2 + group were enrolled in the two centers. The sensitivity and specificity of HPV detection for CIN2 + in urine, vaginal and cervical samples were 86.70% and 36.46%, 90.64% and 30.54%, 93.60% and 26.14%, respectively. The urine sample performed lower sensitivity (p = 0.003) and higher specificity (p < 0.001) than the cervical sample. There was no difference in sensitivity between vaginal and cervical samples (p = 0.146), and the specificity of vaginal samples was higher than that in cervical samples (p < 0.001). The agreement was 78.15% of urine and cervical samples and 85.71% of vaginal and cervical samples. HPV testing on self-collected urine and vaginal samples has acceptable consistency compared with traditional cervical samples. It may be an alternative option for cervical cancer screening. Additional studies are still required to substantiate this issue.
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.