ArticleBMC women's health2025
Efficacy and acceptability of a self-collected medical grade tampon as a novel vaginal sample collection tool for the detection of HPV and STIs.
Article in BMC women's health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the 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.
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.
- Diagnostic accuracy of the Daye diagnostic tampon compared to clinician-collected and self-collected vaginal swabs for detecting HPV: a comparative study.Journal of clinical microbiology · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveCervical cancer remains a significant health concern, particularly in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). This study aims to compare the efficacy and suitability of a self-collected tampon for the detection of human papillomavirus (HPV) and sexually transmitted infections (STIs) using qualitative TMA-based assays (Transcription Mediated Amplification; APTIMA® HPV, APTIMA® Combo 2 (CT/NG; AC2 from now on) and APTIMA®Bacterial Vaginosis (BV from now on). Additionally, we assess the acceptability of tampons as a self-collection tool.
methodsA cohort of 75 female participants aged 18-54 years was recruited through female-focused social networks. Participants provided informed consent and underwent both Health Care Workers (HCW-collected) and self-collected sample collection using the Daye Diagnostic Tampon. Samples were stored in ThinPrep Vials (TP Vial) or Aptima® Multitest Swab Collection Kit (APTIMA®) solutions. HPV and STI testing were performed using TMA-based assay on the fully automated Panther® Platform. Acceptability was assessed through a questionnaire with Likert-scale responses.
resultsThe study involved 60 participants who completed the study (80% of recruited participants). The self-collected tampons showed sensitivity and specificity of 66.67% and 90.74% (when rinsed in TP Vial) and 83.33% and 85.42% (when rinsed in APTIMA®) for HPV detection, respectively. For bacterial vaginosis (BV) detection, the tampons exhibited sensitivity and specificity of 100.0% and 96.43% (TP Vial) and 88.89% and 98.04% (APTIMA), respectively. For detection of chlamydia and gonorrhoea (AC2), the sensitivity and specificity were 100.00% and 100.0% (TP Vial) and 100.00% and 98.31% (APTIMA), respectively. Participants expressed a preference for tampon self-collection over HCW-collected swabs (90%).
conclusionSelf-collected tampons demonstrated promising diagnostic accuracy to HCW-collected swabs for HPV and STI detection. The tampon self-collection method was well-accepted and preferred by participants, suggesting its potential as an alternative screening tool, particularly in low-resource settings. Further research with larger and more diverse populations is recommended to validate these findings and inform tampon-based self-collection programs for cervical cancer screening. Randomised controlled trials and comparisons with gold standard methods would enhance validation.
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.