ArticleJournal of global health2026
Efficient high-risk human papillomavirus screening through pooled testing: a simulation study based on real-world data in low- and middle-income countries.
Article in Journal of global health, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The World Health Organization recommends high-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) testing as the primary method for cervical cancer screening. Combining samples in a pool can reduce the expense associated with large numbers of commercially available tests. This study simulated the potential test-saving impact of pooled hrHPV testing using real-world data from two low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Methods: We simulated a two- and three-stage hrHPV pooling in Bangladesh (hrHPV prevalence 2.10%) and Uganda (hrHPV prevalence 22.52%) using real-world laboratory data. Measurements included the number of tests per stage, the total number of tests, and the percentage of tests saved. We performed sensitivity analysis to assess the impact of a 1.00% loss of sensitivity and specificity per additional sample in the pool on the false-negative rate (FNR). Results: In Bangladesh, the two-stage strategy (eight samples per pool) and the three-stage strategy saved 71.21% and 77.21% of tests, respectively, compared to testing individually. In Uganda, the two-stage strategy (three samples per pool) reduced the number of tests by 15.34% compared to testing individually. Assuming loss of sensitivity and specificity due to pooling, the FNR was higher (FNR = 0.012-0.134) when hrHPV prevalence was low under the two-stage strategy. Conclusions: Pooled hrHPV testing has the potential to reduce the number of tests used and enhance screening capacity in resource-limited settings. Notably, a lower prevalence of hrHPV allows for more efficient pooled testing. Despite the potential loss of sensitivity and specificity, pooled hrHPV testing could offer benefits for LMICs and warrant further verification.
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.