Cited by 106Cervical Cancer and HPV ResearchWomen's cancer prevention and managementGlobal Cancer Incidence and Screening

Vaginal self-sampling is a cost-effective way to increase participation in a cervical cancer screening programme: a randomised trial

Open access
Haguenoer, K, Sengchanh, S, Gaudy-Graffin, C, Boyard, J, Fontenay, R, Marret, H, Goudeau, A, Pigneaux de Laroche, N +2 more·2014·British Journal of Cancer

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Cervical cancer screening coverage remains insufficient in most countries. Our objective was to assess whether in-home vaginal self-sampling with a dry swab for high-risk human papillomavirus (HR-HPV) testing is effective and cost-effective in increasing participation in cervical cancer screening. METHODS: In March 2012, 6000 unscreened women aged 30-65 years, living in a French region covered by a screening programme, who had not responded to an initial invitation to have a Pap smear were equally randomised to three groups: 'no intervention'; 'recall', women received a letter to have a Pap smear; and 'self-sampling', women received a self-sampling kit to return to a centralised virology laboratory for PCR-based HPV testing. RESULTS: Participation was higher in the 'self-sampling' than in the 'no intervention' group (22.5% vs 9.9%, P<0.0001; OR 2.64) and 'recall' group (11.7%, P<0.0001; OR 2.20). In the 'self-sampling' group, 320 used the self-sampling kit; for 44 of these women with positive HR-HPV test results, 40 had the recommended triage Pap smear. The ICER per extra screened woman was 77.8[euro ] and 63.2[euro ] for the 'recall' and 'self-sampling' groups, respectively, relative to the 'no intervention' group. CONCLUSIONS: Offering an in-home, return-mail kit for vaginal self-sampling with a dry swab is more effective and cost-effective than a recall letter in increasing participation in cervical cancer screening.

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 · 10.1038/bjc.2014.510

Cites

41 of 41 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?

  • Three (12%) of the 25 trials met the criteria for low risk of bias in all categories.

    “Three (12%) of the 25 trials met the criteria for low risk of bias in all categories.114 115 117”

    From Detecting cervical precancer and reaching underscreened women by using HPV testing on self samples: updated meta-analyses (2018) · cites this paper as [115]

    The Materials and Methods > Design section describes this paper as a single three-group randomised trial, not an assessment of 25 trials. Searches for “25 trials” and “low risk of bias” found no passage in our copy reporting that three trials (12%) met low-risk criteria in all categories. Page numbers were not available in the indexed passages. (LLM, conf=0.77)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Haguenoer, K., Sengchanh, S., Gaudy-Graffin, C., Boyard, J., Fontenay, R., Marret, H., Goudeau, A., Pigneaux de Laroche, N., Rusch, E., & Giraudeau, B.
Affiliations
  • Inserm (FR)
  • Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Tours (FR)
  • Université de Tours (FR)
Corresponding author
Haguenoer, K
Venue
British Journal of Cancer
Published
2014-09-23
Volume
111
Issue
11
Pages
2187-2196
ISSN
  • 0007-0920 (ISSN-L)
  • 1532-1827
OpenAlex
W2071793902
Cited by
106
References
41
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 1
FWCI
5.56
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • British Journal of Cancer (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • HAL (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
Funders
  • Institut National Du Cancer
  • National Cancer Institute
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
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Global Cancer Incidence and Screening
Keywords
cervical cancer screening, vaginal self-sampling, high-risk human papillomavirus testing, screening uptake, cost-effectiveness, Pap smear, HPV triage
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Uterine Cervical Neoplasms, Cost-Benefit Analysis, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Middle Aged, Patient Participation, Reagent Kits, Diagnostic, Vaginal Smears, Early Detection of Cancer

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