ReviewCureus2025
Diagnostic Accuracy of Urine-Based HPV Testing Compared With Clinician-Collected Cervical Samples for Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia Grade 2 or Worse (CIN2+) Detection: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper 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
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cervical cancer remains a major global health challenge, and human papillomavirus (HPV) testing has become central to screening and prevention programs. Conventional clinician-collected cervical samples, while effective, face barriers of invasiveness, infrastructure requirements, and limited acceptability in certain populations. Urine-based HPV testing has emerged as a potential alternative, offering advantages in convenience and patient preference, but concerns regarding diagnostic accuracy remain. This systematic review and meta-analysis, conducted in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA)-diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) guidelines, evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of urine-based HPV testing for the detection of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse (CIN2+) compared with clinician-collected cervical samples. A comprehensive search of PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library from January 2010 to August 2025 identified five eligible studies comprising 1,031 participants. Data were pooled using a bivariate random-effects model. Urine HPV testing demonstrated a pooled sensitivity of 74% (95% confidence intervals (CI), 67-80%) and a specificity of 52% (95% CI, 43-61%). Performance improved significantly when first-void urine collection and PCR-based assays were employed, with sensitivity approaching that of self-collected vaginal samples. Cervical samples consistently outperformed urine samples in sensitivity, though patient acceptability was higher for urine testing, with over 90% of women preferring it. The included studies had generally low risk of bias, and the heterogeneity was primarily related to assay type and urine collection methods. These findings suggest that while urine HPV testing cannot yet replace cervical sampling in primary screening, it holds strong potential as a complementary strategy, not replacement, to improve screening uptake.
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.