ArticleInternational journal of cancer2026
Under which realistic circumstances is hrHPV self-sampling increasing cervical screening effectiveness in a partly vaccinated population? A modelling study.
Article in International journal of cancer, 2026. 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.
- Effect of direct mailing self-sampling kits on participation in the Dutch hrHPV-based cervical screening programme: a population-based study.The Lancet regional health. Europe · 2026Article
- Under which realistic circumstances is hrHPV self-sampling increasing cervical screening effectiveness in a partly vaccinated population? A modelling study.International journal of cancer · 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
High-risk Human Papillomavirus self-sampling can increase attendance rates for screening. However, observed lower sensitivity and loss to follow-up of self-sampling could reduce programme effectiveness when attenders of clinician-collected sampling switch to self-sampling. We determined the tipping point for effectiveness (based on life years gained [LYG]) of self-sampling and the consequences for cost-effectiveness, taking into account waste by comparing full opt-out (no waste) to no opt-out (waste from unused self-sampling kits). We used the STDSIM-MISCAN-Cervix microsimulation model to simulate a population of Dutch women born in 2000 (50% vaccinated [sensitivity analysis: 0-100%], 70% screening attendance [sensitivity analysis: 60-80%]). Self-sampling deployment strategies (e.g., direct-mail) were varied by the percentage of original attenders switching to self-sampling and the percentage of new attendance from non-attenders. Main outcome measures were LYG and cost-effectiveness (cost per quality adjusted [QA] LY gained) compared to the current programme. We found that if self-sampling does not reach non-attenders, life years cannot be gained. When reaching 10% or 30% of non-attenders, the tipping point lies at ≤40% and ≤100% switchers to maintain effectiveness, respectively (+4 LYG, +10 LYG). Scenarios were cost-effective (<€50,000/QALY gained) if at least 10% of non-attenders were reached. Full opt-out improved cost-effectiveness substantially. So, in a partly vaccinated population, self-sampling deployment strategies need to reach at least 10% of non-attenders to maintain programme effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. A well-functioning opt-out system further improves cost-effectiveness by preventing waste.
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.