ArticleBritish journal of cancer2025
HPValidate-human papillomavirus testing with DNA and mRNA assays on self-collected samples in cervical screening: comparison of test characteristics on three self-sampling devices.
Article in British journal of cancer, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
- Human Papillomavirus Infection Across the Immunological Spectrum: Clinical Expression, Colposcopic Challenges, and Therapeutic Implications.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Evaluation of the Quality and Suitability of Self-Collected Vaginal and Urine Samples for Human Papillomavirus Testing: A Prospective Matched Study.BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology · 2026Article
- Large symptomatic oral squamous papilloma: a report of two unusual cases.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- HPV-Driven Cervical Carcinogenesis: Genetic and Epigenetic Mechanisms and Diagnostic Approaches.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- Cervical Cancer Screening in Transition: Global Challenges and Local Realities.International journal of women's health · 2026Review
- Cervical Cancer in the Era of HPV: Translating Molecular Mechanisms into Preventive Public Health Action.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundRelative test accuracy of human papillomavirus (HPV) testing on self vs. clinician-collected samples may depend on the specific combination of a self-sampling device and HPV assay.
methodsFive self-sampling workflows were studied within the routine English cervical screening programme; the cobas HPV DNA and APTIMA HPV mRNA assays with the Evalyn brush, Self Vaginal FLOQSwabs (FLOQSwabs) and the Multitest kit. To study test sensitivity, women were recruited at routine colposcopy appointments; to study test specificity, women were recruited at routine screening appointments.
resultsThe estimated conditional relative sensitivity for high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN2+) was 0.90 (90% CI: 0.84-0.94) for the Evalyn + cobas workflow, 0.94 (0.90-0.97) for FLOQSwabs + cobas, 0.77 (0.69-0.83) for Evalyn + APTIMA, 0.92 (0.85-0.96) for FLOQSwabs+APTIMA and 0.92 (0.86-0.96) for Multitest+APTIMA. The estimates of the relative specificity were 0.96 (0.95-0.98), 0.91 (0.90-0.93), 0.99 (0.97-1.01), 0.89 (0.87-0.92) and 0.87 (0.85-0.89), respectively. The specificity estimates were sensitive to the inclusion of certain subgroups of women. HPV detection rates were higher for all self-sample than clinician-sample workflows.
conclusionsThe relative test sensitivity of four self-sampling workflows including both DNA and mRNA HPV assays was relatively close to that associated with clinician-collected samples.
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.