CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 125Cervical Cancer and HPV ResearchWomen's cancer prevention and managementGlobal Cancer Incidence and Screening

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 42 of the 42 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The effect of self-sampled HPV testing on participation to cervical cancer screening in Italy: a randomised controlled trial (ISRCTN96071600)

Open access
the Self-Sampling Study Working Group, Giorgi Rossi, P, Marsili, L M, Camilloni, L, Iossa, A, Lattanzi, A, Sani, C, Di Pierro, C, Grazzini, G, Angeloni, C, Capparucci, P, Pellegrini, A, Schiboni, M L, Sperati, A, Confortini, M, Bellanova, C, D'Addetta, A, Mania, E, Visioli, C B, Sereno, E, Carozzi, F·2011·British Journal of Cancer
DOI 10.1038/sj.bjc.6606040PMC PMC3031894
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

BACKGROUND: In Italy, cervical cancer screening programmes actively invite women aged 25-64 years. Programmes are hindered by low participation. METHODS: A sample of non-responder women aged 35-64 years, belonging to three different programmes (in Rome, Florence and Teramo), was randomly split into four arms: two control groups received standard recall letters to perform either Pap-test (first group) or human papillomavirus (HPV) test (second group) at the clinic. A third arm was sent letters offering a self-sampler for HPV testing, to be requested by phone, whereas a fourth group was directly sent the self-samplers home. RESULTS: Compliance with standard recall was 13.9% (N619). Offering HPV test at the clinic had a nonsignificant effect on compliance (N616, relative risk (RR)=1.08; 95% CI=0.82-1.41). Self-sampler at request had the poorest performance, 8.7% (N622, RR=0.62; 95% CI=0.45-0.86), whereas direct mailing of the self-sampler registered the highest compliance: 19.6% (N616, RR=1.41; 95% CI=1.10-1.82). This effect on compliance was observed only in urban areas, Florence and Rome (N438, RR=1.69; 95% CI=1.24-2.30), but not in Abruzzo (N178, RR=0.95; 95% CI=0.61-1.50), a prevalently rural area. CONCLUSIONS: Mailing self-samplers to non-responders may increase compliance as compared with delivering standard recall letters. Nevertheless, effectiveness is context specific and the strategy costs should be carefully considered.

Overview

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/sj.bjc.6606040

Cites

42 of 42 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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?

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 42 references

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Arbyn M, Anttila A, Jordan J, Ronco G, Schenck U, Segnan N, Wiener H, Herbert A, von Karsa L (2008) European Guidelines for Quality Assurance on Cervical Cancer Screening 2nd edn. European Community: Brussels; Office for Official Publications of the European Communities: Luxembourg

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–125 of 125

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
the Self-Sampling Study Working Group, Giorgi Rossi, P., Marsili, L. M., Camilloni, L., Iossa, A., Lattanzi, A., Sani, C., Di Pierro, C., Grazzini, G., Angeloni, C., Capparucci, P., Pellegrini, A., Schiboni, M. L., Sperati, A., Confortini, M., Bellanova, C., D'Addetta, A., Mania, E., Visioli, C. B., Sereno, E., & Carozzi, F.
Affiliations
  • Regione Lazio (IT)
  • ASL Roma (IT)
  • Istituto per lo Studio e la Prevenzione Oncologica (IT)
  • Azienda Ospedaliera San Giovanni Addolorata (IT)
ORCID
Venue
British Journal of Cancer
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2010-12-21
Volume
104
Issue
2
Pages
248-254
ISSN
  • 0007-0920 (ISSN-L)
  • 1532-1827
DOI
10.1038/sj.bjc.6606040
PMC
PMC3031894
OpenAlex
W2054969461
Cited by
125
References
42
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 14 · 2014: 18 · 2013: 11 · 2012: 6
FWCI
4.90
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • British Journal of Cancer (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Ministero della Salute
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, HPV self-sampling, screening uptake, non-responders, Pap smear, urban-rural differences, Italy
MeSH terms
Adult, Uterine Cervical Neoplasms, Female, Humans, Italy, Mass Screening, Middle Aged, Patient Acceptance of Health Care, Patient Compliance, Surveys and Questionnaires, Vaginal Smears, Alphapapillomavirus

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