Cited by 100Cervical Cancer and HPV ResearchWomen's cancer prevention and managementReproductive tract infections research

Can human papillomavirus DNA testing of self-collected vaginal samples compare with physician-collected cervical samples and cytology for cervical cancer screening in developing countries?

Open access
Bhatla, Neerja, Dar, Lalit, Patro, A. Rajkumar, Kumar, Pankaj, Kriplani, Alka, Gulati, Arti, Iyer, Venkateswaran K., Mathur, Sandeep R. +3 more·2009·Cancer Epidemiology

Abstract

Background To determine human papillomavirus (HPV) types by polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-reverse line blot assay and examine the concordance between HPV by Hybrid Capture 2 (HC2) and PCR on self-collected vaginal and physician-collected cervical samples and cytology. Methods This was a cross-sectional study of 546 sexually active women aged > or =30 years with persistent vaginal discharge, intermenstrual or postcoital bleeding or an unhealthy cervix. Participants self-collected vaginal samples (HPV-S) and physicians collected cervical samples for conventional Pap smear and HPV DNA (HPV-P) testing and performed colposcopy, with directed biopsy, if indicated. HPV testing and genotyping was done by HC2 and PCR reverse line blot assay. Concordance between HC2 and PCR results of self- and physician-collected samples was determined using a Kappa statistic (kappa) and Chi-square test. Results Complete data were available for 512 sets with 98% of women providing a satisfactory self-sample. PCR detected oncogenic HPV in 12.3% of self- and 13.0% of physician-collected samples. Overall, there was 93.8% agreement between physician-collected and self-samples (kappa=76.31%, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 64.97-82.29%, p=0.04)-complete concordance in 473 cases (57 positive, 416 negative), partial concordance in seven pairs and discordance in 32 pairs. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) of self-sampling for detection of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN)2+ disease were 82.5%, 93.6%, 52.4% and 98.4%, respectively; for physician-sampling they were 87.5%, 93.2%, 52.2% and 98.9%, respectively; and for cytology they were 77.5%, 87.3%, 34.1% and 97.9%, respectively. Concordance between HC2 and PCR was 90.9% for self-samples (kappa=63.7%, 95% CI: 55.2-72.2%) and 95.3% for physician-collected samples (kappa=80.4%, 95% CI: 71.8-89.0%). Conclusions Self-HPV sampling compares favourably with physician-sampling and cytology. A rapid, affordable, HPV self-test kit can be used as the primary method of cervical cancer screening in low-resource situations.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.canep.2009.10.013

Cites

20 of 20 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Several studies comparing HPV screening results from self-collected and clinician-collected specimens in low- and middle-income countries have all demonstrated high levels of agreement.

    “There have been several studies comparing HPV screening results from self-collected and clinician-collected specimens in low- and middle-income countries with all demonstrating high levels of agreement (Bhatla et al., 2009; Quincy et al., 2012; Verma and Khanna, 2013; Nilyanimit et al., 2014; Rosenbaum et al., 2014; Adamson et al., 2015; Ma’som et al., 2016).”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [6]Bhatla N Ramachandran S Virmani A Arora VK Gulati A Singla S Correlation of FastHPV and cytology: performance trial results from India Paper Presented at the 24th International Papillomavirus Conference 2007

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bhatla, N., Dar, L., Patro, A. R., Kumar, P., Kriplani, A., Gulati, A., Iyer, V. K., Mathur, S. R., Sreenivas, V., Shah, K. V., & Gravitt, P. E.
Affiliations
  • All India Institute of Medical Sciences (IN)
  • Johns Hopkins University (US)
Corresponding author
Bhatla, Neerja
Venue
Cancer Epidemiology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2009-12
Volume
33
Issue
6
Pages
446-450
ISSN
1877-7821 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2102499315
Cited by
99
References
20
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 7 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 7
FWCI
4.27
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Cancer Epidemiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Cancer Institute (P50CA098252)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Cervical Cancer and HPV Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Women's cancer prevention and management
  • Life Sciences › Immunology and Microbiology › Microbiology › Reproductive tract infections research
Keywords
human papillomavirus, HPV testing, self-collected vaginal samples, cervical cancer screening, Hybrid Capture 2, cervical intraepithelial neoplasia, Pap smear cytology, test concordance, developing countries, resource-limited settings, HPV genotyping, screening sensitivity and specificity, colposcopy
MeSH terms
Adult, Uterine Cervical Dysplasia, Uterine Cervical Neoplasms, Colposcopy, Cross-Sectional Studies, Developing Countries, DNA, Viral, Female, Humans, Predictive Value of Tests, Prognosis, Self Care, Sensitivity and Specificity, Vaginal Smears, Reproducibility of Results, Polymerase Chain Reaction, Papillomaviridae, Papillomavirus Infections, Papanicolaou Test

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review