SynthesisFrontiers in microbiology2026
Diagnostic accuracy of self-collected menstrual blood for high-risk human papillomavirus testing for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia and cervical cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in microbiology, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Human papillomavirus (HPV) test is the most commonly used method for cervical cancer screening, but the participation rates remain low in many countries. Self sampling menstrual blood (MB) high-risk HPV (hr-HPV) test may offer a solution to this issue. The aim of this meta-analysis was to examine the accuracy of MB HPV test in detecting cervical cancer and cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN). Methods: Electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane) were searched for articles published through October 23, 2024, with the following search terms: (men strual blood OR menstruation) AND (human papillomavirus). Observational studies (e.g., cross-sectional studies, retrospective studies and prospective studies) that reported cervical histopathological biopsy outcomes in women undergoing self-sampling MB HPV testing were included. Data extraction was performed by two independent reviewers according to the PRISMA guidelines. Meta-analyses were conducted based on sensitivities and specificities and corresponding 95% Confidence intervals (CIs) using bivariate random-effects model and hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic (HSROC) model. The risk of publication bias and heterogeneity were also assessed. Data were analyzed from October to November 2024. Results: Seven studies involving 1,672 adult women were included. The overall sensitivity and specificity of hrHPV testing from the MB samples for the diagnosis of CIN and cervical cancer were 0.96 (95% CI = 0.74-1.00, I Discussion: The evidence from this meta-analysis, which includes women with and without CIN and cervical cancer, shows the high sensitivity and low specificity of the MB hrHPV test. Further large-scale diagnostic studies that combine multiple testing modalities are recommended to support and validate the application of the MB hrHPV test. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD42024605195, Identifier CRD42024605195.
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.