Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40447422›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2025

Postnatal instead of normally-timed cervical screening (PINCS-1): a protocol for a feasibility study of paired-sample cervical screening and urine self-sampling at 6 weeks and 12 weeks postnatal in the UK.

Victoria Cullimore, Rebecca Newhouse, Holly Baker-Rand, Adam R Brentnall, Kim Chu, Karin Denton, Lorna McWilliams, Alex Sargent, Sudha Sundar, Emma J Crosbie and 1 more

Abstract readClinical Trial Protocol
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 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. Comparison of Cervical Screening at 6- and 12-Weeks Postnatal: A Paired-Sample Feasibility Study.BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology · 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

11 authors.

Victoria CullimoreDepartment of Gynaecological Oncology, Somerset NHS Foundation Trust, Taunton, UK.
Rebecca NewhouseDepartment of Gynaecological Oncology, Somerset NHS Foundation Trust, Taunton, UK.
Holly Baker-RandDepartment of Gynaecological Oncology, Somerset NHS Foundation Trust, Taunton, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0005-9301-6929
Adam R BrentnallWolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.
Kim ChuWolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.
Karin DentonCellular Pathology, North Bristol NHS Trust, Southmead Hospital, Bristol, UK.
Lorna McWilliamsManchester Centre for Health Psychology, Division of Psychology & Mental Health, School of Health Sciences, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Alex SargentCytology Department, Clinical Sciences Centre, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK.
Sudha SundarCancer Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Emma J CrosbieCancer Prevention & Early Detection Research, NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre, The University of Manchester Faculty of Biology Medicine and Health, Manchester, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0284-8630
Jo MorrisonDepartment of Gynaecological Oncology, Somerset NHS Foundation Trust, Taunton, UK j.morrison2@exeter.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0000-520X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionCervical screening rates in the UK are falling, limiting our ability to prevent cervical cancer. Peak incidence of cervical cancer coincides with average age of childbirth, and women with young children are less likely to be screened. Current UK guidelines advise waiting 12 weeks after delivery to perform cervical screening, but this recommendation is not based on evidence from the era of liquid-based cytology or high-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) testing. New mums suggested offering cervical screening at 6 weeks postdelivery, in conjunction with the postnatal check-up with the general practice team in primary care. This study aims to assess the feasibility and acceptability of a paired-sample study design for cervical screening at 6 weeks and 12 weeks postnatal. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A study of 100 participants will be performed to assess feasibility and acceptability of cervical screening at both 6 weeks and 12 weeks postnatal, with urine self-sampling using a Colli-pee collection device at each time point. This will inform whether women are prepared to undergo cervical screening at 6 weeks postnatal and the feasibility of a future pair-wise diagnostic test accuracy (of HPV and abnormal cervical cytology) study or whether alternative study designs are needed. Participants must be aged 24.5-64 years old and eligible for the National Health Service Cervical Screening Programme (NHS CSP). At each appointment, participants will complete a questionnaire about their experience and thoughts regarding screening. Substudies ask participants who withdraw or decline to participate their reasons, to identify barriers. The study will be closed for recruitment once 100 participants have completed the 6-week screen in Postnatal Instead of Normally-Timed Cervical Screening (PINCS-1) or if recruitment is poor and 50% not recruited by 6 months, indicating that a paired-sample design is not feasible. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval for PINCS-1 was given by the Stanmore Research Ethics Committee. The results, including participant feedback at each stage, built into the trial design, will inform the design of large studies to determine accuracy and clinical impact of cervical screening at 6 weeks postnatal, identifying whether giving choice (eg, from timing of appointments and/or offering self-sampling) will improve screening uptake. Data will inform the sample size needed for future studies to have adequate power. Results will also inform future NHS CSP management. Results will be shared via scientific publication and via conventional and social media channels accessed by young women. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN10071810.

Indexed as

Early Detection of CancerMass ScreeningPapillomavirus InfectionsUrine Specimen CollectionUterine Cervical NeoplasmsAdultFeasibility StudiesFemaleHumansPatient Acceptance of Health CareTime FactorsUnited KingdomVaginal SmearsYoung AdultColposcopyCYTOPATHOLOGYGynaecological oncologyHPV InfectionPostpartum Women

Identifiers

PMID40447422
PMCPMC12128473

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.