Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40270492›Full record

SynthesisFrontiers in medicine2025

Assessment of HPV screening modalities within primary care: a systematic review.

Yahya Mostafa Waly, Abu-Baker Sharafeldin, Abdulrahman Al-Majmuei, Mohammad Alatoom, Salim Fredericks, Adri-Anna Aloia

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Frontiers in medicine, 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. Case Report: Possible spatially-distinctFrontiers in medicine · 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

6 authors.

Yahya Mostafa Waly *School of Medicine, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, Medical University of Bahrain, Al Muharraq, Bahrain.
Abu-Baker Sharafeldin *School of Medicine, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, Medical University of Bahrain, Al Muharraq, Bahrain.
Abdulrahman Al-Majmuei *School of Medicine, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, Medical University of Bahrain, Al Muharraq, Bahrain.
Mohammad Alatoom *School of Medicine, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, Medical University of Bahrain, Al Muharraq, Bahrain.
Salim FredericksSchool of Medicine, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, Medical University of Bahrain, Al Muharraq, Bahrain.
Adri-Anna AloiaFoundation of International Medical Graduates, Toronto, ON, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Most cervical cancer precancerous lesions are associated with high-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) subtypes. Early detection through screening is crucial for preventing and managing HPV-related diseases. HPV Self-sample screening is a proposed method that can mitigate socioeconomic disparities, reduce embarrassment and costs of screening. This can possibly reduce the overall disease burden. Methods: A search strategy was conducted across multiple databases, including PubMed, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and Embase. Data extraction was performed using a standardized form to collect detailed information on study characteristics, participant demographics, and various outcomes. The quality and risk of bias in the articles were assessed using the Critical Appraisal skills programme (CASP) checklist, and the Cochrane Risk of Bias (ROB) tool. Results: Our review consistently found that HPV self-sampling is comparable to clinician-collected samples in terms of HPV detection rates and sensitivity, supporting the idea that HPV self-sampling can be a viable alternative for cervical cancer screening. Across the studies, self-sampling showed comparable or greater effectiveness to clinician-collected samples in detecting HPV in individuals. Specificity was comparable between both methods, with clinician-collected sampling slightly outperforming HPV self-sampling in some cases. Moreover when analyzing the negative predictive value (NPV) and positive predictive value (PPV) across the studies, it was evident that there was little difference between clinician-collected sampling and HPV self-sampling. 64.3% favored self-sampling over clinician-collected sampling due to increased comfort and privacy. Overall, the evidence suggests that self-sampling is an effective, patient-preferred, and cost-efficient alternative to clinician-collected sampling, particularly in under-screened populations.

Indexed as

human papillomavirus (HPV)patient preferenceself-samplingsensitivityspecificity

Identifiers

PMID40270492
PMCPMC12014435

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.