Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40673035›Full record

ArticleRevista brasileira de ginecologia e obstetricia : revista da Federacao Brasileira das Sociedades de Ginecologia e Obstetricia2025

Accuracy of self-collection versus cervical sampling for the molecular diagnosis of

Gabriela Vasco, Cecilia Cruz, Paterson Peñaherrera, Katherine Tipán, Sandy Pila, Karol Guzmán, Marisol Cabascango, Katherine Logacho, Patricio Jácome

Abstract readComparative StudyMulticenter StudyComparative Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Revista brasileira de ginecologia e obstetricia : revista da Federacao Brasileira das Sociedades de Ginecologia e Obstetricia, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

9 authors.

Gabriela VascoUniversidad Central del Ecuador Facultad de Ciencias Médicas Quito Ecuador Facultad de Ciencias Médicas, Universidad Central del Ecuador, Quito, Ecuador.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8318-2465
Cecilia CruzUnidad de Genética y Molecular Instituto Ecuatoriano de Seguridad Social Hospital de Especialidades Carlos Andrade Marín Quito Ecuador Unidad de Genética y Molecular, Hospital de Especialidades Carlos Andrade Marín, Instituto Ecuatoriano de Seguridad Social, Quito, Ecuador.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7385-4232
Paterson PeñaherreraUniversidad Central del Ecuador Facultad de Ciencias Médicas Quito Ecuador Facultad de Ciencias Médicas, Universidad Central del Ecuador, Quito, Ecuador.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0008-7282-1058
Katherine TipánUniversidad Central del Ecuador Facultad de Ciencias Médicas Quito Ecuador Facultad de Ciencias Médicas, Universidad Central del Ecuador, Quito, Ecuador.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0007-2863-9921
Sandy PilaUniversidad Central del Ecuador Facultad de Ciencias Médicas Quito Ecuador Facultad de Ciencias Médicas, Universidad Central del Ecuador, Quito, Ecuador.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0008-9218-8376
Karol GuzmánUniversidad Central del Ecuador Facultad de Ciencias Médicas Quito Ecuador Facultad de Ciencias Médicas, Universidad Central del Ecuador, Quito, Ecuador.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0000-8289-0497
Marisol CabascangoUniversidad Central del Ecuador Facultad de Ciencias Médicas Quito Ecuador Facultad de Ciencias Médicas, Universidad Central del Ecuador, Quito, Ecuador.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0002-2354-8450
Katherine LogachoUniversidad Central del Ecuador Facultad de Ciencias Médicas Quito Ecuador Facultad de Ciencias Médicas, Universidad Central del Ecuador, Quito, Ecuador.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0007-5622-3341
Patricio JácomeUniversidad Central del Ecuador Facultad de Ciencias Médicas Quito Ecuador Facultad de Ciencias Médicas, Universidad Central del Ecuador, Quito, Ecuador.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0003-8630-7459

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: Successful measures to address the increasing prevalence of sexually transmitted infections (STIs) require practical and accessible education and detection programs. Methods: The ability to detect Results: The analysis revealed that self-collection was 100% sensitive (95% CI 66.4% to 100.0%) and 100% specific (95% CI 98.25%-100%), and first-catch urine was 90% sensitive (95% CI 55.5% to 99.8%), and 99% specific (95% CI 96.5% to 99.9%) compared to cervical brushing for the detection of Conclusion: This study demonstrates the feasibility and reliability of self-collection and first-catch urine samples as alternative methods for detecting

Indexed as

Chlamydia InfectionsChlamydia trachomatisGonorrheaNeisseria gonorrhoeaeSelf CareSpecimen HandlingAdolescentAdultCervix UteriEcuadorFemaleHumansMiddle AgedSensitivity and SpecificityYoung AdultChlamydia trachomatisGonorrheaNeisseria gonorrhoeaePrevalenceSexually transmitted diseasesWomen

Identifiers

PMID40673035
PMCPMC12266874

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.