SynthesisViruses2026
Diagnostic Accuracy of Urine and Vaginal Self-Sampling for Detection of High-Risk Human Papillomavirus: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Viruses, 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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Cervical cancer remains a major public health challenge, particularly in low- and middle-income countries. The primary cause of cervical cancer is high-risk human papillomavirus (HPV), and screening using physician-collected samples is complicated by stigma, inconvenience, and access. There are non-invasive alternatives to the physician-collected samples, including self-sampling methods such as first-void urine and vaginal swabs. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated and compared the diagnostic accuracy of vaginal and urine self-sample methods for detecting high-risk HPV. PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library were searched for studies published between January 2015 and October 2025. Bivariate random-effects models and HSROC models were used to estimate pooled sensitivity and specificity results compared with clinician-collected samples for CIN2+. Meta-regression assessed sources of heterogeneity. Twenty-two studies involving over 9000 participants were included. Vaginal self-sampling showed a pooled sensitivity of 91.3% and a specificity of 86.9%, while urine self-sampling showed 86.9% sensitivity and 79.5% specificity. Vaginal swabs demonstrated higher sensitivity in head-to-head comparisons. DNA-based PCR assays showed higher sensitivity than mRNA-based tests, and room-temperature storage decreased urine sample sensitivity. Both methods are effective for high-risk HPV detection. Vaginal self-sampling showed superior performance, while urine self-sampling remains a valuable non-invasive option for under-screened populations.
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.