ArticlePreventive medicine reports2025
A United States study of self-collected urine vs clinician-collected cervical sample for HPV and cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade two or worse detection: Cross-sectional agreement and diagnostic accuracy study.
Article in Preventive medicine reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Agreement and Diagnostic Performance of Urinary HPV Testing Versus Clinician-Collected Cervico-Vaginal Sampling: A Prospective Cross-Sectional Study in a Romanian Cohort.Medical sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Cervical Cancer Screening and Prevention among Latinas in the United States among a Network of Community Health Centers.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: Urine can provide a non-invasive screening method for high-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) infections. We aimed to compare detection rates of hrHPV and cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade two or worse (CIN2+) using first-void urine (FVU) and clinician-collected cervical samples. We assessed whether the time of day of FVU collection impacts hrHPV detection. Methods: We recruited 188 participants, 30-65 years, before their colposcopy or routine screening from September 2020 through February 2022. Each collected FVU twice on the same day: at home and in the clinic before their appointments. We used prevalence-adjusted bias-adjusted kappa (PABAK) scores to compare hrHPV type-specific agreement, followed by McNemar's Exact test. We assessed both absolute and relative sensitivity and specificity to evaluate the accuracy of the collection techniques in predicting CIN2+ by hrHPV type. Results: 95 hrHPV infections were detected in 70/188 (37.2 %) women. The PABAK agreement for hrHPV16 detection between FVU and the speculum was 0.95 (95 % CI: 0.91, 1.0). The agreement for hrHPV detection was almost perfect between home or clinic urine collection and the speculum specimen. The accuracy of CIN2+ detection measured by the sensitivity ratio of the clinic first-void specimen compared to the speculum specimen for hrHPV16 was 1.00 (0.62, 6.20). Most specificity ratios for all other hrHPV types were anchored at 1.0 with narrow confidence intervals. The time of day for FVU gave similar "any hrHPV" detection rates (27.5 % vs 32 %, Conclusion: FVU hrHPV testing offers a potential cervical cancer screening alternative for women who cannot tolerate other collections.
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.