ArticleRevista da Associacao Medica Brasileira (1992)2026
Self-collected versus clinician-collected human papillomavirus samples.
Article in Revista da Associacao Medica Brasileira (1992), 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe aim of this study was to evaluate the comparability of self-collected and clinician-collected samples for human papillomavirus detection, cytological findings, and identification of infectious agents.
methodsThis prospective controlled clinical trial enrolled 124 women aged 30-65 years due for routine cervical cancer screening. This prospective comparative study enrolled 124 women aged 30-65 years who were eligible for routine cervical cancer screening. Participants were allocated to either a clinician-collected control group (n=51) or a self-collected group (n=73) via systematic allocation based on clinic registration order. Viral deoxyribonucleic acid analysis was performed by multiplex real-time polymerase chain reaction; cytological evaluation followed the Bethesda classification system. Infectious agents and participant satisfaction were also assessed. Laboratory personnel were blinded to group allocation.
resultsOverall human papillomavirus positivity was 21.8% (27/124), with rates of 27.5% (14/51) in the control group and 17.8% (13/73) in the self-collected group (p=0.200). Cytological abnormalities were detected in 5.5% of self-collected samples (three cases of atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance, one case of atypical squamous cells cannot exclude high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion) versus 0% in the control group (p=0.236). Inflammatory smear findings, Candida (9.8 vs. 8.2%), and Trichomonas vaginalis (0 vs. 1.4%) detection rates were similar between groups. Mean satisfaction score was 12.6±1.62 out of 16 (78.8% positive responses).
conclusionSelf-collected human papillomavirus sampling yields results diagnostically comparable to clinician-collected specimens. Self collected human papillomavirus sampling demonstrated similar human papillomavirus detection rates compared with clinician-collected specimens. Given its feasibility and high acceptability, self-collection may serve as an effective complementary approach in cervical cancer screening programs, particularly for reaching women who have not previously participated in screening.
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.