ArticleBJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology2026
Comparison of Cervical Screening at 6- and 12-Weeks Postnatal: A Paired-Sample Feasibility Study.
Article in BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveFeasibility of a paired-sample study comparing cervical screening and urine self-sampling at 6- and 12-weeks postnatal.
designPaired-sample feasibility study.
settingAcute hospital. POPULATION OR SAMPLE: Females within 6 weeks of childbirth.
methodsPaired-sample study comparing cervical screening and high-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) testing from clinician-taken samples and urine self-samples at 6- and 12-weeks postnatal.
main outcome measuresUptake rates, patient-reported outcomes, adverse events, HPV detection, relative HPV sensitivity and specificity.
resultsOf 245 potential participants, 115 (47%) consented, 102 (89%) and 96 (83%) attended their 6- and 12-week screening visits, respectively. Median pain scores for cervical screening did not differ (6-weeks = 1; 12-weeks = 1; p = 0.76). Most would be happy for future screening at 6-weeks postnatal, 97/102 (95%) and 85/95 (89%) when asked at 6- and 12-week study visits, respectively. Agreement rate of clinician-taken HPV tests between 6- and 12-weeks was 94.8% (91/96, 95% confidence interval [CI], 88.4%-97.8%), with no inadequate combination HPV/cytology tests (6 vs. 12-week: sensitivity 80% [95% CI, 44.4-97.5]; specificity 96.5% [95% CI 90.1-99.3]). Relative to 12-week clinician-taken samples, urine self-sampling may have lower sensitivity for HPV (e.g., 6-week: sensitivity 60.0% [95% CI 26.2-87.8]; specificity 96.5% [95% CI 90.1-99.3]; NPV 95.4% [95% CI 88.6-98.7]).
conclusionsA paired-sample study of cervical screening at 6- and 12-weeks is feasible. Inadequacy rates of cervical screening were low, with high agreement. Urine self-sampling may be less sensitive in this population.
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.