ArticleBMJ open2025
Randomised controlled trial evaluating the impact of different methods of HPV DNA testing for cervical cancer screening in Singapore's primary care settings: a study protocol.
Article in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06528184 (Evaluating the Impact of Different Methods of HPV DNA Testing for Cervical Cancer Screening in Primary Care Settings), which is not on this map. 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.
Evaluating the Impact of Different Methods of HPV DNA Testing for Cervical Cancer Screening in Primary Care Settings
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Effect of Self-Sampling HPV DNA Testing on Cervical Cancer Screening in Singapore's Primary Care: Pragmatic Randomized Controlled Trial.Annals of family medicine · 2026Trial
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionCervical cancer remains a significant public health concern in Singapore, with current screening rates at 43%, well below the national target of 70%. In 2019, human papillomavirus (HPV) DNA testing was introduced into the national cervical cancer screening programme, but barriers to participation include embarrassment, privacy concerns and discomfort with clinician-sampled tests. Self-sampled HPV DNA testing offers a promising alternative by providing more privacy and convenience. This study aims to evaluate the impact of including self-sampled HPV DNA testing as an alternative to clinician-sampling on screening uptake, clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness in primary care. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This pragmatic, open-label, two-arm randomised controlled trial employs a Zelen design. A total of 650 women aged 30-69 who are due for cervical cancer screening will be recruited from National Healthcare Group Polyclinics in Singapore. Participants will be randomly assigned to either the intervention arm (offering both self-sampling and clinician-sampling) or the usual care arm (clinician-sampling only). The primary outcome is the proportion of participants in each arm detected with high-risk HPV. Secondary outcomes include the proportion of participants in each arm who undergo cervical cancer screening (uptake), are referred for colposcopy and are detected with CIN 2/3 or cervical cancer, as well as cost-effectiveness. Acceptability and feasibility of self-sampling will be evaluated through post-screening questionnaires. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval was granted by the National Healthcare Group Domain Specific Review Board. Study results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journals, healthcare conferences and shared with policymakers to guide potential inclusion of self-sampling in Singapore's national cervical cancer screening programme. Findings from this trial will provide crucial evidence for the potential inclusion of self-sampling in Singapore's national cervical cancer screening programme, which could increase screening rates and improve public health outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT06528184.
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.