The DOI matches its Crossref record; 130 of the 130 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 14 of the 33 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
Detecting cervical precancer and reaching underscreened women by using HPV testing on self samples: updated meta-analyses
Open accessAbstract
Objective: To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of high-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) assays on self samples and the efficacy of self sampling strategies to reach underscreened women. Design: Updated meta-analysis. Data sources: Medline (PubMed), Embase, and CENTRAL from 1 January 2013 to 15 April 2018 (accuracy review), and 1 January 2014 to 15 April 2018 (participation review). Review methods: Accuracy review: hrHPV assay on a vaginal self sample and a clinician sample; and verification of the presence of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse (CIN2+) by colposcopy and biopsy in all enrolled women or in women with positive tests. Participation review: study population included women who were irregularly or never screened; women in the self sampling arm (intervention arm) were invited to collect a self sample for hrHPV testing; women in the control arm were invited or reminded to undergo a screening test on a clinician sample; participation in both arms was documented; and a population minimum of 400 women. Results: 56 accuracy studies and 25 participation trials were included. hrHPV assays based on polymerase chain reaction were as sensitive on self samples as on clinician samples to detect CIN2+ or CIN3+ (pooled ratio 0.99, 95% confidence interval 0.97 to 1.02). However, hrHPV assays based on signal amplification were less sensitive on self samples (pooled ratio 0.85, 95% confidence interval 0.80 to 0.89). The specificity to exclude CIN2+ was 2% or 4% lower on self samples than on clinician samples, for hrHPV assays based on polymerase chain reaction or signal amplification, respectively. Mailing self sample kits to the woman’s home address generated higher response rates to have a sample taken by a clinician than invitation or reminder letters (pooled relative participation in intention-to-treat-analysis of 2.33, 95% confidence interval 1.86 to 2.91). Opt-in strategies where women had to request a self sampling kit were generally not more effective than invitation letters (relative participation of 1.22, 95% confidence interval 0.93 to 1.61). Direct offer of self sampling devices to women in communities that were underscreened generated high participation rates (>75%). Substantial interstudy heterogeneity was noted (I 2 >95%). Conclusions: When used with hrHPV assays based on polymerase chain reaction, testing on self samples was similarly accurate as on clinician samples. Offering self sampling kits generally is more effective in reaching underscreened women than sending invitations. However, since response rates are highly variable among settings, pilots should be set up before regional or national roll out of self sampling strategies.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
In updated meta-analyses of 56 diagnostic accuracy studies and 25 randomized participation trials, hrHPV testing on self samples was as sensitive as clinician samples when using PCR-based assays, but less sensitive with signal-amplification assays. Mailing self-sampling kits increased participation among underscreened women, though effects varied substantially by invitation strategy and setting.
Key findings
- PCR-based hrHPV assays on self samples were as sensitive as clinician samples for CIN2+ (pooled ratio 0.99, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.02) and CIN3+ (0.99, 0.96 to 1.02), with slightly lower specificity to exclude CIN2+ (0.98, 0.97 to 0.99).
- Signal-amplification hrHPV assays were less sensitive on self samples for CIN2+ (0.85, 0.80 to 0.89) and CIN3+ (0.86, 0.76 to 0.98), and less specific to exclude CIN2+ (0.96, 0.93 to 0.98).
- In intention-to-treat analysis, mailing self-sampling kits to the home increased participation versus invitation/reminder letters (relative participation 2.33, 95% CI 1.86 to 2.91), whereas opt-in strategies were not significantly more effective (1.22, 0.93 to 1.61).
- Door-to-door delivery generated high participation (>75%; pooled self-sampling participation 94.2% per protocol and 94.6% intention-to-treat), and CIN2+ detection per 1000 invited women was higher in self-sampling arms (relative proportion 2.28, 95% CI 1.44 to 3.61).
Methods
- Updated meta-analyses: accuracy review searched Medline, Embase, and CENTRAL from 1 January 2013 to 15 April 2018; participation review searched from 1 January 2014 to 15 April 2018.
- Included 56 diagnostic test accuracy studies comparing hrHPV testing on vaginal self samples versus clinician samples with CIN2+/CIN3+ verification, and 25 randomized trials of self-sampling offers among irregularly/never-screened women with at least 400 women.
- Pooled accuracy using a bivariate normal model for logit-transformed sensitivity/specificity; pooled participation using random-effects models for proportions and ratios; assessed quality with QUADAS-2 and Cochrane risk-of-bias tools.
Limitations
- Stated: meta-analyses based on aggregated published results lacked detailed data equally stratified by potentially influencing factors; meta-regression including only eight studies did not reveal age effects, and subgroup analyses/meta-regressions were not possible because covariates were categorized differently across studies.
- Stated: the authors propose pooling individual patient data from the best trials to evaluate influential factors more efficiently.
- Evident: substantial interstudy heterogeneity was noted (I²>95%), including high heterogeneity for participation outcomes and opt-in results (P<0.001), and quality reporting was incomplete for some domains, such as uninterpretable results poorly reported for evaluated tests (39%) and reference standard (45%).
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
14 of 33 cited sources checked · 6 supported · 0 flagged · accuracy not yet measured
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“The participation was not significantly different when hrHPV testing was performed versus when cytology was performed (P=0.60 v P=0.76).104 117”
§ Detecting cervical precancer and reaching underscreened women by using HPV testing on self samples: updated meta-analyses > Results > Efficacy of invitation scenarios
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [104] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Results (‘Effect on compliance’; page unavailable) report similar participation after invitations for clinic-based HPV testing (14.9%) and standard Pap-test recall (13.9%). The Abstract (‘Results’; page unavailable) explicitly calls the difference nonsignificant. Our copy does not report the cited P=0.60 or P=0.76 values; this paper also accounts for only one of the two studies cited. (LLM, conf=0.83)
- Partly supportedcites [117] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Results (page unavailable) report no difference in participation between the cytology and HPV clinic-control groups at one centre. However, the reported P value is 0.9, not 0.60 or 0.76; this source does not support the quoted figures or the claim about two studies. (LLM, conf=0.88)
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passes- Partly supported
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“Third, a proportion of screened women with cervical precancer and cancer show false negative Pap tests.18 19”
§ Detecting cervical precancer and reaching underscreened women by using HPV testing on self samples: updated meta-analyses > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [18] source
- Supportedcites [19] Koliopoulos, 2017, Cytology versus HPV testing for cervical cancer screening in the general population, Cochrane Database Syst Rev source
The Rationale section reports that some women who developed cervical cancer had previously had false-negative Pap smears. The Quality of the evidence section also reports false-negative Pap results for CIN 2+ (cervical precancer). (LLM, conf=0.94)
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesThe cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“In the first control arm (reminder letter) the response rate was 10.5% (95% confidence interval 9.9% to 11.2%)”
§ Detecting cervical precancer and reaching underscreened women by using HPV testing on self samples: updated meta-analyses > Results > Efficacy of invitation scenarios
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [69] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Participation section reports that 931 of 8,830 women (10.5%) in the recall-letter control group had a Pap smear within 12 months. Our copy does not report the claimed 95% confidence interval of 9.9% to 11.2%, although it is consistent with the reported counts. (LLM, conf=0.82)
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passes- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Three (12%) of the 25 trials met the criteria for low risk of bias in all categories.114 115 117”
§ Detecting cervical precancer and reaching underscreened women by using HPV testing on self samples: updated meta-analyses > Results > Quality of randomized clinical trials in the participation review
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [114] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Design (p. 2) identifies this source as a randomized trial, and Randomization and blinding (p. 4) describes its allocation and blinding procedures. The paper does not assess 25 trials or establish that three met low-risk-of-bias criteria in every category; it supports identifying one trial, not the aggregate claim. (LLM, conf=0.82)
- Could not verifycites [115] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
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)
- Could not verifycites [117] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Methods (Analysis and Study design; page unavailable) describe this paper’s own randomized trial, not an assessment of 25 trials. Searches for “25 trials,” “low risk of bias,” and “three trials 12%” found no passage reporting the claimed count or bias rating. (LLM, conf=0.75)
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passes- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“whereas in the second control arm (no letter), the response rate was slightly lower (8.0%, 95% confidence interval 7.5% to 8.6%)”
§ Detecting cervical precancer and reaching underscreened women by using HPV testing on self samples: updated meta-analyses > Results > Efficacy of invitation scenarios
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [69] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Participation section reports that 709 women (8%) in the no-intervention arm had a PAP smear within 12 months, and the study description identifies this as the second control group. Our copy does not report the claimed 95% confidence interval of 7.5%–8.6% for that rate; the Statistical analysis section discusses confidence intervals for odds ratios instead. Page numbers are not available for these passages. (LLM, conf=0.86)
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passes- Partly supported
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“Second, certain groups of the target population do not attend screening.15 16 17”
§ Detecting cervical precancer and reaching underscreened women by using HPV testing on self samples: updated meta-analyses > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [15] source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [16] source
- Supportedcites [17] source
The Results (Social status) report screening coverage of 40% among women receiving increased health-care reimbursement, compared with 64% among other women in the Belgian target population. The Results (Age groups) also show lower coverage in older target-age groups. These findings support the claim that some groups do not attend screening. (LLM, conf=0.93)
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesThe cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Two previous participation meta-analyses showed that sending self sampling kits to a woman’s home address generated greater response rates than invitation or reminder letters.23 24”
§ Detecting cervical precancer and reaching underscreened women by using HPV testing on self samples: updated meta-analyses > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [23] source
- Partly supportedcites [24] Racey, 2013, Self-collected HPV Testing Improves Participation in Cervical Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis, Can.J.Public Health sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Synthesis in our copy (Abstract; page not specified) reports that this meta-analysis found greater screening participation with self-collected HPV testing than with Pap testing. It does not establish the more specific comparison of kits sent to home addresses against invitation or reminder letters, so that part of the claim is unsupported by the available passages. (LLM, conf=0.76)
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesEvery source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“We found five studies that provided response rates in both trial arms stratified by categories defined on the screening history status.”
§ Detecting cervical precancer and reaching underscreened women by using HPV testing on self samples: updated meta-analyses > Results > Efficacy of invitation scenarios
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [26] source
The Results section (‘Participation in relation to screening history’; page not available) reports participation comparisons between intervention and control groups for women with different screening histories. The Methods section (‘Statistical analysis’; page not available) also states that participation analyses were stratified by screening history. This paper therefore fits as one of the studies the citing authors identified; the count of five is the citing authors’ own finding. (LLM, conf=0.90)
- Supportedcites [65] source
The Participation (as randomised) section reports participation rates for both trial arms separately for apparently never-screened and under-screened women. This confirms that the cited trial is one study with rates stratified by screening history; the citing authors’ count of five studies is their own finding, not a finding attributed to this paper. (LLM, conf=0.91)
- Supportedcites [103] source
The Results (Participation rate; page unavailable) report response rates in both the self-sampling and recall-control arms, separately for women who had and had not had a smear in the past seven years. This confirms that the cited paper is one study fitting the citing authors’ description; the count of five studies is the citing authors’ own finding. (LLM, conf=0.92)
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passes- Supported
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, in screening studies, where partial verification bias was avoided, the specificity of the hrHPV assay based on signal amplification on self samples was significantly lower (83%) than in studies where verification was not avoided or unclear (87%; P=0.03).”
§ Detecting cervical precancer and reaching underscreened women by using HPV testing on self samples: updated meta-analyses > Results > Accuracy of hrHPV assay
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesThe paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Direct offer of self sampling devices to women in communities that were underscreened generated high participation rates (>75%).”
§ Detecting cervical precancer and reaching underscreened women by using HPV testing on self samples: updated meta-analyses > Abstract > Results
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes
- Probably not a substantial claim. 9
- It may state two separate claims as one. 19
- The quote only partly states this claim. 2
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“We assessed the quality of the randomized clinical trials for the participation review by using the Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for risk of bias in randomized trials.30”
§ Detecting cervical precancer and reaching underscreened women by using HPV testing on self samples: updated meta-analyses > Methods > Study selection, data extraction, and checking
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [30] source
The Additional information section identifies this as the Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. The citation identifies the instrument the citing authors say they used; their use of it in the participation review is not a finding attributed to this source. (LLM, conf=0.93)
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Supported
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Each hrHPV assay based on polymerase chain reaction was equally sensitive for CIN2+ and for CIN3+ on self samples versus clinician samples.”
§ Detecting cervical precancer and reaching underscreened women by using HPV testing on self samples: updated meta-analyses > Results > Accuracy of hrHPV assay
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“56 accuracy studies and 25 participation trials were included.”
- Also stated in: § Results · plain
“The updated meta-analyses finally comprised 56 diagnostic test accuracy studies and 25 randomized trials.”
§ Detecting cervical precancer and reaching underscreened women by using HPV testing on self samples: updated meta-analyses > Abstract > Results
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § Results · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In general, hrHPV assays were less specific on self samples except for the HC2 assay on a tampon self sample (n=1) or an assay based on polymerase chain reaction on a vaginal lavage self sample (2).”
§ Detecting cervical precancer and reaching underscreened women by using HPV testing on self samples: updated meta-analyses > Results > Accuracy of hrHPV assay
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The test positivity rate was, on average, 14% higher and the positive predictive value was significantly lower for both CIN2+ and CIN3+ for self samples (positive predictive value< 1).”
§ Detecting cervical precancer and reaching underscreened women by using HPV testing on self samples: updated meta-analyses > Results > Accuracy of hrHPV assay
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesThe quote only partly states this claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The test positivity rate was similar in self samples versus clinician samples.”
§ Detecting cervical precancer and reaching underscreened women by using HPV testing on self samples: updated meta-analyses > Results > Accuracy of hrHPV assay
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesThe quote only partly states this claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The participation difference was nearly always positive except for two studies where the difference was significantly lower than zero.”
§ Detecting cervical precancer and reaching underscreened women by using HPV testing on self samples: updated meta-analyses > Results > Efficacy of invitation scenarios
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“whereas on average in the intention-to-treat analysis, the pooled relative participation exceeded unity, although not significantly (1.22, 0.93 to 1.61)”
§ Detecting cervical precancer and reaching underscreened women by using HPV testing on self samples: updated meta-analyses > Results > Efficacy of invitation scenarios
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The quality of verification with a reference standard (acceptable validity, blinding toward tests, and avoidance of incorporating test results in final conclusion of disease outcome) was good in 84%, moderate in 13%, and problematic in 4% of the studies.”
§ Detecting cervical precancer and reaching underscreened women by using HPV testing on self samples: updated meta-analyses > Results > Quality of diagnostic studies in the accuracy review
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Reporting and execution of tests (description of cut-off, blinding of the index test toward comparator and reference test) was adequate in 73% and unclear in 27%, but the risk of bias was never assessed as high.”
§ Detecting cervical precancer and reaching underscreened women by using HPV testing on self samples: updated meta-analyses > Results > Quality of diagnostic studies in the accuracy review
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The risk of bias for enrolment of women was considered low in 59%, moderate in 39%, and high in 2% of the 56 diagnostic studies (supplementary materials).”
§ Detecting cervical precancer and reaching underscreened women by using HPV testing on self samples: updated meta-analyses > Results > Quality of diagnostic studies in the accuracy review
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Withdrawal of patients was explained appropriately in 70%, but not in 18%, and unclear in 12% of the studies.”
§ Detecting cervical precancer and reaching underscreened women by using HPV testing on self samples: updated meta-analyses > Results > Quality of diagnostic studies in the accuracy review
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“We assessed the quality of the diagnostic studies for the accuracy review by using the QUADAS-2 check list.29”
§ Detecting cervical precancer and reaching underscreened women by using HPV testing on self samples: updated meta-analyses > Methods > Study selection, data extraction, and checking
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [29] source
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The delay between self sampling, clinician sampling, and verification with the reference standard was short in 61%, unreported in 38%, and long in 2% of the studies.”
§ Detecting cervical precancer and reaching underscreened women by using HPV testing on self samples: updated meta-analyses > Results > Quality of diagnostic studies in the accuracy review
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The meta-analyses followed PRISMA guidelines for reporting of meta-analyses, and recommendations established by the Cochrane Collaboration for diagnostic test accuracy and intervention trials.31 32”
§ Detecting cervical precancer and reaching underscreened women by using HPV testing on self samples: updated meta-analyses > Methods > Statistical methods
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [31] Moher, 2009, Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement, Ann Intern Med source
- Not matchedcites [32] Deeks, 2013
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“All trials had complete data for the participation outcome and were therefore at low risk of attrition bias.”
§ Detecting cervical precancer and reaching underscreened women by using HPV testing on self samples: updated meta-analyses > Results > Quality of randomized clinical trials in the participation review
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“However, recent trend analyses reveal an increasing burden of cervical cancer, even in countries with well organized screening programs based on cytology and good coverage.8 9 10 11 12”
§ Detecting cervical precancer and reaching underscreened women by using HPV testing on self samples: updated meta-analyses > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [8] source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [9] source
- Not matchedcites [10] Finnish Cancer Registry. Cancer Statistics. Cancer Society of Finland. https://cancerregistry.fi/statistics/cancer-statistics/
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“We assessed publication bias by using Deeks' and Harbord's regression tests for the pooled absolute and relative accuracy estimates, respectively.36 37”
§ Detecting cervical precancer and reaching underscreened women by using HPV testing on self samples: updated meta-analyses > Methods > Statistical methods
What the sources say
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“The previous accuracy meta-analysis concluded that hrHPV testing was less sensitive on self samples than on clinician samples, but also found that the reason for lower sensitivity was the use of assays based on signal amplification.22”
§ Detecting cervical precancer and reaching underscreened women by using HPV testing on self samples: updated meta-analyses > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [22] source
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Partial verification was avoided in 70% but clearly present in 25%, whereas differential verification was absent in 89% but unclear or present in 11% of the studies.”
§ Detecting cervical precancer and reaching underscreened women by using HPV testing on self samples: updated meta-analyses > Results > Quality of diagnostic studies in the accuracy review
Strength:boosted· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“hrHPV testing provides another advantage: it can be done on vaginal samples collected by the patient (self samples), whereas cytology on self samples shows poor accuracy.21”
§ Detecting cervical precancer and reaching underscreened women by using HPV testing on self samples: updated meta-analyses > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [21] source
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“MA and one other author (SBS, ST, FS, or a Collaboration on Self-Sampling and HPV Testing group member) independently performed the study selection and data extraction. PC judged any unresolvable discordances.”
§ Detecting cervical precancer and reaching underscreened women by using HPV testing on self samples: updated meta-analyses > Methods > Study selection, data extraction, and checking
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Most cervical cancer cases occur in women who have never been screened for cervical cancer, or do not participate in routine screening.7”
§ Detecting cervical precancer and reaching underscreened women by using HPV testing on self samples: updated meta-analyses > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [7] IARC, 2005
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The quality of reporting was adequate in 12 trials (48%),26 67 102 103 104 107 108 109 114 115 116 117 118 incomplete in one trial,106 and intermediate in the other trials.”
§ Detecting cervical precancer and reaching underscreened women by using HPV testing on self samples: updated meta-analyses > Results > Quality of randomized clinical trials in the participation review
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In eight trials (32%) allocation was random and concealed,26 63 64 65 104 114 115 117 in 14 trials (56%) allocation was unclear,66 67 102 103 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 116 and in three trials (12%) allocation was problematic.62 68 69”
§ Detecting cervical precancer and reaching underscreened women by using HPV testing on self samples: updated meta-analyses > Results > Quality of randomized clinical trials in the participation review
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
The paper relies on this without support.
Intention-to-treat analyses of participation trials reflect the overall public health effect in a real world situation.
“In the intention-to-treat analyses, which reflected the overall public health effect in a real world situation, we additionally included women in the experimental arm who had been offered self sampling but choose to have a clinician sample taken instead.”
The paper relies on this without support.
New assays, self sampling devices, storage media, and participation strategies have entered the market since the publication of the two previous meta-analyses, and more accuracy and participation studies have been conducted.
“New assays, self sampling devices, storage media, and participation strategies have entered the market since the publication of these two meta-analyses; and more accuracy and participation studies have been conducted.”
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?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Encouragingly, there is promising evidence supporting the potential of a self-sampling approach to increase screening participation in under-screened and never-screened women and the efficacy of a single-dose vaccine to facilitate straightforward implementation of the programs.[144][145][146]”
From Global cancer statistics 2022: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. (2024) · cites this paper as [145]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“as shown by multiple previous studies, the Roche Cobas 4800 assay is known for having a relatively high sensitivity compared with other HPV assays (12, 13, 17).”
From Comparison between the Roche Cobas 4800 Human Papillomavirus (HPV), Abbott RealTime High-Risk HPV, Seegene Anyplex II HPV28, and Novel Seegene Allplex HPV28 Assays for High-Risk HPV Detection and Genotyping in Mocked Self-Samples (2023) · cites this paper as [12]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“An additional and significant benefit of HPV-based screening is that vaginal samples collected via self-collection, hereafter referred to as self-collection, can detect HPV at levels indicative of precancer of the cervix (cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or above—CIN2+) as accurately as cervical samples collected using a speculum by a clinician.8”
From Protocol for a cervical screening implementation trial comparing two approaches for delivering HPV self-collection in low-resource settings in India: a type 3 hybrid cluster randomised controlled trial (SHE-CAN) (2025) · cites this paper as [8]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) based HPV assays to detect high-risk HPVs are as accurate on HPV self-samples as the clinician collected samples [8].”
From Performance of HPV Self-Sample Collected by a Novel Kit in Comparison with Clinician Collected Sample for Cervical Cancer Screening (2024) · cites this paper as [8]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“This has led to improved screening rates among unscreened women.8 9 16 18 48”
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Vaginal-lavage study count differs between text and table
MinorThe text gives a count of two for polymerase-chain-reaction testing on vaginal lavage self samples, but table 2 lists four studies for that category.
“an assay based on polymerase chain reaction on a vaginal lavage self sample (2)”
“| Lavage† | 4 | 0.95 (0.87 to 1.04) | 1.09 (0.91 to 1.30) |”
Citations
Cites
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: the PRISMA statement
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & for the PRISMA Group (2009) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.b2535 · Cited by 83,823
Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses
Higgins, J. P. T., Thompson, S. G., Deeks, J. J., & Altman, D. G. (2003) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557 · Cited by 63,139
Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA Statement.
(2009) · PubMed Central · Cited by 44,859
Meta-analysis in clinical trials
DerSimonian, R., & Laird, N. (1986) · Controlled Clinical Trials · doi:10.1016/0197-2456(86)90046-2 · Cited by 39,552
Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & the PRISMA Group* (2009) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-151-4-200908180-00135 · Cited by 37,554
The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials
Higgins, J. P. T., Altman, D. G., Gotzsche, P. C., Juni, P., Moher, D., Oxman, A. D., Savovic, J., Schulz, K. F., Weeks, L., Sterne, J. A. C., et al. (2011) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.d5928 · Cited by 33,817
QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies
Whiting, P. F., Rutjes, A. W. S., Westwood, M. E., Mallett, S., Deeks, J. J., Reitsma, J. B., Leeflang, M. M. G., Sterne, J. A. C., Bossuyt, P. M. M., & the QUADAS-2 Group* (2011) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-155-8-201110180-00009 · Cited by 14,199
Deeks, J. J., Macaskill, P., & Irwig, L. (2005) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2005.01.016 · Cited by 2,910
Metaprop: a Stata command to perform meta-analysis of binomial data
Nyaga, V. N., Arbyn, M., & Aerts, M. (2014) · Archives of Public Health · doi:10.1186/2049-3258-72-39 · Cited by 2,139
Self-citationRonco, G., Dillner, J., Elfström, K. M., Tunesi, S., Snijders, P. J. F., Arbyn, M., Kitchener, H., Segnan, N., Gilham, C., Giorgi-Rossi, P., et al. (2014) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(13)62218-7 · Cited by 1,810
Self-citation
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- IARC, 2005, Cervix Cancer Screening. IARC Handbooks of Cancer Prevention. Vol. 10
- Deeks, 2013, Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Version 1.0.0.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 701–800 of 848
Liang, L., Song, C., Chang, C., Chen, S., Yang, B. Y., & Sun, L. (2024) · medRxiv · doi:10.1101/2024.11.08.24316970
Self-testing for human papillomavirus as a screening method for identifying risk groups
Александровна, Г. Т., Levakov, S. A., & Мушкюрова, Д. Р. (2024) · Clinical Medicine (Russian Journal) · doi:10.30629/0023-2149-2024-102-5-6-415-421
Cullimore, V., Newhouse, R., Baker-Rand, H. L. A., Brentnall, A. R., Chu, K., Denton, K. J., McWilliams, L., Sargent, A., Sundar, S. S., Crosbie, E. J., et al. (2024) · medRxiv · doi:10.1101/2024.11.20.24317620
Modeling HPV Self-Sampling Impact on Cervical Cancer in East African Immigrants
Tsegaye, A. T., Winer, R. L., Cole, A., Szpiro, A. A., Walson, J. L., & Rao, D. W. (2024) · American Journal of Preventive Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2024.11.012
OECD (2024) · OECD health policy studies · doi:10.1787/964ad13f-sl
OECD (2024) · OECD health policy studies · doi:10.1787/0cdc42ae-fr
OECD (2024) · OECD health policy studies · doi:10.1787/c0f28aca-en
Ng, K., El‐Zein, M., Wissing, M. D., Burchell, A. N., Tellier, P., Coutlée, F., Waterboer, T., & Franco, E. L. (2025) · Journal of Medical Virology · doi:10.1002/jmv.70163
“However, the participating females were provided with detailed self ‐ sampling instructions, and self ‐ collected vaginal samples have been shown to be comparable to provider ‐ collected samples when using PCR assays [34].”
Cost-effectiveness of human papillomavirus self-sampling in the Swedish cervical screening programPreprint
Östensson, E., Borgfeldt, C., Pedersen, K., Hellman, K., Sy, S., Lei, J., Burger, E. A., & Clements, M. (2025) · medRxiv · doi:10.1101/2025.02.12.25322120
Liao, Z., Zou, K., Lei, M., Wu, Y., Yang, W., & Zhang, Y. (2025) · Journal of Lower Genital Tract Disease · doi:10.1097/lgt.0000000000000875
Progress in the Study of Cervical Cancer Screening Methods
孙, 祺. (2025) · Advances in Clinical Medicine · doi:10.12677/acm.2025.153829
Ng, X. R., Quek, I. P., Pereira, M. J., Molina, J. A. D. C., Ngeow, J. Y. Y., & Wong, S. K. W. (2025) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2024-095091 · Cited by 1
Morgis, R., Wong, A., Witmer, L., et al. (2025) · Women s Health Reports · doi:10.1089/whr.2024.0180
Acceptability of Vaginal Human Papillomavirus Self-Collection Among Colposcopy Clinic Attendees
MacLaughlin, K. L., Mara, K. C., Maxson, J. A., et al. (2025) · Women s Health Reports · doi:10.1089/whr.2025.0006
Houvèssou, G. M., Saidu, R., Boa, R., Mbatani, N., Moodley, J., & Kuhn, L. (2025) · JCO Global Oncology · doi:10.1200/go-25-00037
High acceptability of HPV self-sampling in a Singapore primary care setting
Chan, G. M. F., Ong, L. S. D., Shen, L., et al. (2025) · Annals of the Academy of Medicine Singapore · doi:10.47102/annals-acadmedsg.20255
In-Clinic Self-swab for Human Papillomavirus Offers New Option for Cervical Cancer Screening
Heys, D., Liebermann, E., & Fontenot, H. B. (2025) · Nursing for Women s Health · doi:10.1016/j.nwh.2025.02.004
The Future of Cervical Cancer Screening Is Now
Tergas, A. I., & Einstein, M. H. (2025) · Obstetrics and Gynecology · doi:10.1097/aog.0000000000005960
Fujita, M., Nagashima, K., Shimazu, M., Suzuki, M., Tauchi, I., Sakuma, M., Yamamoto, S., Hanaoka, H., Shozu, M., Tsuruoka, N., et al. (2025) · Journal of Medical Screening · doi:10.1177/09691413251352999
Madsen, K. L., Tranberg, M., Nørgaard, P., Medina, C., Storgaard, M., Vorsters, A., Keer, S. V., Hønge, B. L., & Jespersen, S. (2025) · Journal of Medical Virology · doi:10.1002/jmv.70466
Matsushima, M., Wang, J., Minami, T., et al. (2025) · Health Science Reports · doi:10.1002/hsr2.71005
“According to a meta ‐ analysis, self ‐ sampling testing increased screening uptake and detection [23, 24].”
Gomes, M., McCulloch, H., Milanova, V., Mihaylova, K., & Hellner, K. (2025) · medRxiv · doi:10.1101/2025.07.12.25331431
“While existing literature establishes self-sampling as an acceptable alternative that increases screening participation, few studies have assessed tampons as sampling devices (13, 17, 25, 26).”
EVOLVING CERVICAL CANCER SCREENING GUIDELINES AND HPV VACCINATION STATUS. A LITERATURE REVIEW
Tomaszewska, Z., Perzanowska, A., Zielińska, A., et al. (2025) · International Journal of Innovative Technologies in Social Science · doi:10.31435/ijitss.3(47).2025.3569
“When hrHPV detection relies on PCR-based methods, self-sampling maintains comparable sensitivity with only a slight reduction in specificity in detecting high-grade cervical lesions (CIN2+ or CIN3+), while still achieving better participation rates than conventional approaches (Arbyn et al, 2018).”
Arora, P., Jawale, S., Gupte, S., et al. (2025) · Frontiers in Medical Technology · doi:10.3389/fmedt.2025.1458857
“This finding supports previous research indicating that self-sampling is a reliable method for HPV detection, comparable to sampling performed by healthcare professionals (14, 17).”
Indicações do exame colposcópico
Valença, J. E. C. (2025) · Revista Brasileira de Patologia do Trato Genital Inferior · doi:10.5327/2237-4574-119
Moss, J. L., Bernacchi, V., Entenman, J., et al. (2025) · Cancer Medicine · doi:10.1002/cam4.71283
“Receipt of follow-up care after abnormal hrHPV tests is suboptimal [6].”
Prélèvement cervico-utérin : cytologie, virologie, prélèvement urinaire et autoprélèvement
Sousa, C., Lecointre, L., Tromelin, E., Ardaens, K., Durand, C., Lévêque, J., & Dion, L. (2025) · EMC - Gynécologie · doi:10.1016/s0246-1064(25)48143-2
Wealth, health expenditure and cancer: an econometric analysis for European countries
AYDIN, B., & Aydın, E. İ. (2025) · Health Economics Review · doi:10.1186/s13561-025-00665-0
“In the study conducted by Arbyn et al. (2018) [62], it was determined that countries with low HDI had high rates of incidence and mortality, while countries with very high HDI had low rates of incidence and mortality.”
Choudhary, N., Pathak, R. S., Shukla, P., Singh, N., Kolte, S. S., & Shamsunder, S. (2025) · Journal of Colposcopy and Lower Genital Tract Pathology · doi:10.4103/jclgtp.jclgtp_15_25
Yüksel, İ. T., Güner, G., Çaltek, N. Ç., et al. (2025) · Discover Oncology · doi:10.1007/s12672-025-03870-9
“Although current screening methods such as cytology and HPV testing have reduced cervical cancer incidence, they are limited by either low sensitivity or specificity and may not be universally accessible [20–22].”
Guetterman, T. C., Vinson, A. H., Stack, M. A., Alves, M. L., Haro, E. K., Alman, E., Butcher, Khoury, C. E., DeJonckheere, M. J., & Harper, D. M. (2025) · Cancer Causes & Control · doi:10.1007/s10552-025-02081-5 · Cited by 2
Whaiti, S. T., Rose, S. B., Innes, C., Bell, R. A. R., Tino, A. B., McBain, L., & Sykes, P. H. (2025) · Journal of Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities · doi:10.1007/s40615-025-02725-x
Lurgain, J. G., Peremiquel‐Trillas, P., Ouaarab‐Essadek, H., et al. (2025) · BMC Health Services Research · doi:10.1186/s12913-025-13488-w
Delgado, M. B., Cabanell, J. I., Cameo, S. C., Mira, J. J., Guilabert, M., Vanaclocha‐Espí, M., Pinto‐Carbó, M., Trejo, D. S., Zurriaga, Ó., & Molina‐Barceló, A. (2025) · Cancer Control · doi:10.1177/10732748251378812 · Cited by 1
The Importance and Prospects of Cervical Cancer Screening in the Workplace
Yoko, H. (2025) · Health Evaluation and Promotion · doi:10.7143/jhep.52.683
Arum, A., Andreasen, E. K., Pedersen, H., Nielsen, T. D., Frandsen, P., Pedersen, B. T., Høgdall, E. V. S., & Bonde, J. H. (2025) · Apmis · doi:10.1111/apm.70109 · Cited by 1
“HR-HPV sampling, including self-samples, has proven equal to clinician-collected samples regarding sensitivity and specificity, when using validated PCR techniques and when applying manufacturer-specified cut-off values [6, 34].”
Development of an HPV 16 rapid test founded in user-centered design with primary care clinicians
Brennan, L. P., Hamacher, F., Claure, L. A., et al. (2025) · Analytical Methods · doi:10.1039/d5ay01621e
Chatzistamatiou, Κ., Zafrakas, Μ., Gkoliou, G., Sofou, E., Pasentsis, K., Karakatsoulis, G., Αγοραστός, Θ., & Σταματόπουλος, Κ. (2025) · Diagnostics · doi:10.3390/diagnostics15243205
“It has been demonstrated that the accuracy of hrHPV assays based on polymerase chain reaction (PCR) in vaginal self-collected specimens was comparable to that of specimens collected by physicians [11].”
Dépistage du cancer du col de l’utérus
Mal, P.-A., Delangle, R., & Canlorbe, G. (2025) · EMC - Traité de médecine AKOS · doi:10.1016/s1634-6939(25)65301-4
Experience with Cervical Cancer Screening and Views on HPV Self-Sampling Among Somali American Women
Pratt, R. J., Barsness, C. B., Lin, J. W., Adan, F., Abdi, S., Mohamed, S., Farah, H., Trofholz, A. C., DESAI, J. R., Fordyce, K., et al. (2025) · Journal of General Internal Medicine · doi:10.1007/s11606-025-10080-0 · Cited by 1
“9,38 For example, providers would be able to offer information and address misconceptions about HPV and cervical cancer 39 and build a relationship with patients, which may increase patients’ willingness to receive follow-up care for abnormal HPV self-sampling test results.”
Sormani, J., Datchoua, A. M., Wisniak, A., et al. (2025) · BMC Women s Health · doi:10.1186/s12905-025-04083-6
“Cervical cancer (CC) is a global public health burden, which particularly affects low-and middle-income countries (LMICs) where 85% of CC cases occur [1], mainly caused by persistent infection with Human papillomavirus (HPV), is preventable by the means of HPV vaccination and screening [2].”
Slater, T., Stevenson, K., Adcock, A., Clueard, M.-A., Aperahama, K., Thompson, C., Lambert, C., MacDonald, E. J., Gibson‐Helm, M. E., GELLER, S. E., et al. (2025) · Journal of Primary Health Care · doi:10.1071/hc25151
Berggrund, M., Gustavsson, I. M., Aarnio, R., Lindberg, J. H., Sanner, K., Wikström, I., Enroth, S., Bunikis, I., Olovsson, M., & Gyllensten, U. (2020) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.13064421
Gates, A., Pillay, J., Reynolds, D., Stirling, R., Traversy, G., Korownyk, C. S., Moore, A. E., Thériault, G., Thombs, B. D., Little, J., et al. (2021) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.13514679
Verberckmoes, B., Vos, T. D., Maelegheer, K., Ali-Risasi, C., Sturtewagen, Y., Praet, M., Vandenbroeck, D., & Padalko, E. (2023) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.24647155
Gates, A., Pillay, J., Reynolds, D., Stirling, R., Traversy, G., Korownyk, C. S., Moore, A. E., Thériault, G., Thombs, B. D., Little, J., et al. (2021) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.13514685
Borg, S. A., Cao, J., Nguyen, P.-Y., Aziz, S., & Vogel, J. P. (2024) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.26655877
Borg, S. A., Cao, J., Nguyen, P.-Y., Aziz, S., & Vogel, J. P. (2024) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.26655889
Paolino, M., Antelo, V. S., Cuberli, M., Curotto, M., Pera, A. L., Binder, F., Mazzadi, J. D., Firmenich, B., & Arrossi, S. (2024) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.26561075
Borg, S. A., Cao, J., Nguyen, P.-Y., Aziz, S., & Vogel, J. P. (2024) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.26655886
Borg, S. A., Cao, J., Nguyen, P.-Y., Aziz, S., & Vogel, J. P. (2024) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.26655892
Powell, A., Anderson, L., Brotherton, J., et al. (2025) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.5164530
Liang, L. A., Zeissig, S. R., Schauberger, G., et al. (2022) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.20282151
Gates, A., Pillay, J., Reynolds, D., Stirling, R., Traversy, G., Korownyk, C. S., Moore, A. E., Thériault, G., Thombs, B. D., Little, J., et al. (2021) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.13514688
Borg, S. A., Cao, J., Nguyen, P., Aziz, S., & Vogel, J. P. (2023) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.24864079
Straw, C., Antelo, V. S., Kohler, R. E., Paolino, M., Viswanath, K., & Arrossi, S. (2024) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.26562286
Borg, S. A., Cao, J., Nguyen, P.-Y., Aziz, S., & Vogel, J. P. (2024) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.26655883
Tranberg, M., Jensen, J. S., Bech, B. H., et al. (2020) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.13336540
Gates, A., Pillay, J., Reynolds, D., Stirling, R., Traversy, G., Korownyk, C. S., Moore, A. E., Thériault, G., Thombs, B. D., Little, J., et al. (2021) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.13514676
Zhao, X.-L., Zhao, S., Xia, C.-F., Hu, S.-Y., 段仙芝, Liu, Z.-H., Wang, Y.-Y., You, T.-T., Gao, M., Qiao, Y., et al. (2023) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.22649258
Straw, C., Antelo, V. S., Kohler, R. E., Paolino, M., Viswanath, K., & Arrossi, S. (2024) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.26562292
Straw, C., Antelo, V. S., Kohler, R. E., Paolino, M., Viswanath, K., & Arrossi, S. (2024) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.26562289
Gates, A., Pillay, J., Reynolds, D., Stirling, R., Traversy, G., Korownyk, C. S., Moore, A. E., Thériault, G., Thombs, B. D., Little, J., et al. (2021) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.13514682
Pauw, H. D., Donders, G. G. G., Weyers, S., Sutter, P. D., Doyen, J., Tjalma, W. A. A., Vandenbroeck, D., Peeters, E., Keer, S. V., Vorsters, A., et al. (2021) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.16544088
Self-citationPaolino, M., Antelo, V. S., Cuberli, M., Curotto, M., Pera, A. L., Binder, F., Mazzadi, J. D., Firmenich, B., & Arrossi, S. (2024) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.26561072
Paolino, M., Antelo, V. S., Cuberli, M., Curotto, M., Pera, A. L., Binder, F., Mazzadi, J. D., Firmenich, B., & Arrossi, S. (2024) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.26561078
Borg, S. A., Cao, J., Nguyen, P.-Y., Aziz, S., & Vogel, J. P. (2024) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.26655880
Gates, A., Pillay, J., Reynolds, D., Stirling, R., Traversy, G., Korownyk, C. S., Moore, A. E., Thériault, G., Thombs, B. D., Little, J., et al. (2021) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.13514673
Borg, S. A., Cao, J., Nguyen, P.-Y., Aziz, S., & Vogel, J. P. (2024) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.24864325
Paolino, M., Antelo, V. S., Cuberli, M., Curotto, M., Pera, A. L., Binder, F., Mazzadi, J. D., Firmenich, B., & Arrossi, S. (2024) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.26561069
Castle, P. E., Ajeh, R. A., Dzudie, A., et al. (2020) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.12644499
Self-citationMitchell, L. E., Phillips, E. C., Jennett, C. J., et al. (2025) · medRxiv · doi:10.64898/2025.12.25.25343011
Updates in cervical cancer screening: A practical guide for the internist
Beck, J. B., & Morenz, A. M. (2026) · The American Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.amjmed.2025.12.023
Andersson, H., & Dillner, J. (2026) · medRxiv · doi:10.64898/2026.01.15.26344201
Oommen, A. M., Ashfaq, M., Ranjani, D. P., Suresh, D., Paul, J., Ebenezer, N., Malini, T., Mukherjee, P. K., Singarayar, P., Prakash, P., et al. (2026) · Cancer Causes & Control · doi:10.1007/s10552-025-02108-x
Siferih, M., Gedif, G., Lamesgen, A., Alamneh, A. A., Muluneh, A. A., Melesse, Y. D., Mihiret, G. T., Gete, M., Getnet, A., Amha, H., et al. (2026) · BMC Public Health · doi:10.1186/s12889-026-26382-9 · Cited by 1
“Integrating HPV testing into existing reproductive health, HIV, and primary health services may enhance efficiency and coverage, although workflow adaptations and referral mechanisms will require local piloting [76, 77].”
Ndao, M., Soumboundou, M., Apemagnon, A. L. E., et al. (2026) · Advances in Infectious Diseases · doi:10.4236/aid.2026.161006
Policy Brief: An Evidence-Based Roadmap for the Equitable Elimination of HPV-Related Cancers by 2035
Khalesi, Z. B., Shakiba, M., & Fallah-karkan, M. (2025) · F1000Research · doi:10.12688/f1000research.173282.1
Incorporation of HPV-DNA molecular test into the Brazilian healthcare system
Júnior, D. S. T. (2026) · Journal of Cancer Policy · doi:10.1016/j.jcpo.2026.100713
Human Papillomavirus Screening: Design and Targeting of Human Papillomavirus Genotypes
Dillner, J. (2026) · Current topics in microbiology and immunology · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-17775-9_4
Chen, C., Hsiao, K., Lu, S., Bai, C., Wen, K., & Wang, Y. H. (2026) · Journal of Lower Genital Tract Disease · doi:10.1097/lgt.0000000000000936
Muestreo cervicouterino: citología, virología, muestreo de orina y automuestreo
Sousa, C., Lecointre, L., Tromelin, E., Ardaens, K., Durand, C., Lévêque, J., & Dion, L. (2026) · EMC - Ginecología-Obstetricia · doi:10.1016/s1283-081x(26)51494-2
Lamberti, O., Ndubani, R., Fitzpatrick, J. L., Webb, E., Kasese, N., Nyondo, B., Kosloff, B. R., Cheeba, M. M., Mayaud, P., Lemin, M. E., et al. (2026) · The Journal of Infectious Diseases · doi:10.1093/infdis/jiag153
“HPV DNA testing can be performed on provider-or self-collected samples, with comparable sensitivity and specificity between the 2 methods [20 – 22].”
Jops, P., Wolter, A., Bavor, C., Dodd, R. H., Smith, M. A., Saunders, T., Nightingale, C. E., & Kelly‐Hanku, A. (2026) · BMC Public Health · doi:10.1186/s12889-026-27034-8 · Cited by 1
“…testing to five-yearly HPV testing, opening the possibility of screening using either a self-collected vaginal sample or clinician-collec-tion, as the accuracy of HPV testing to detect cervical precancer is similar on self-collected vaginal samples and clinician-collected cervical samples [10, 11].”
Hallsson, L. R., Hoflacher, A.-M., Stratil, J. M., Muehler, M., Koch, L., John, E., Hillemanns, P., Jentschke, M., Siebert, U., & Sroczynski, G. (2026) · BMC Health Services Research · doi:10.1186/s12913-026-14409-1 · Cited by 1
“The authors of included studies mainly assumed that the performance of clinician-collected and self-sampling HPV tests is comparable, as also shown in a meta-analysis [11].”
Towards Global HPV Eradication: Single-Dose HPV Vaccination vs. Pseudoscience
Shiro, R., & Tsunoda, I. (2026) · Pathophysiology · doi:10.3390/pathophysiology33020025
“The self-collected samples have been shown to achieve sensitivity comparable to that of clinician-collected samples, with improved participation in screening [37,38].”
Rakhmanova, M., Sakko, Y., Suleimenova, A., et al. (2026) · Annals of Medicine · doi:10.1080/07853890.2026.2645175
Глобальний тягар раку шийки матки та скринінг
Manzhura, E. P. (2026) · Likarska sprava · doi:10.31640/ls-2026-1-28
Multicenter Evaluation of 2 Vaginal Self-Collection Devices for HPV Testing
Huang, S., Nelson, K., Gentil, L. G., et al. (2026) · Journal of Lower Genital Tract Disease · doi:10.1097/lgt.0000000000000947
Tranberg, M., Keer, S. V., Hesselink, A. T., Christensen, P. N., Brøndum, R., Wu, C. S., Gustafson, L. W., Hammer, A., Bor, P., Binderup, K. O., et al. (2026) · BMC Medicine · doi:10.1186/s12916-026-04837-5
“This approach risks loss to follow-up and delays in diagnosis [10].”
A Vision-Retrieval-Augmented Generation Framework for Interpretable Cervical Cytology Screening
Edafetanure-Ibeh, F. T., Edafetanure-Ibeh, O. M., & Ihesiulo, O. C. (2026) · IEEE SoutheastCon · doi:10.1109/southeastcon63549.2026.11476079
“The main cause of cervical cancer is the persistent infection with high-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) [16], [17] Screening guidelines have shifted toward HPV-based testing because it offers superior sensitivity compared with cytology alone [18].”
Ji, X., Ji, X. Y., Chen, S., et al. (2026) · Frontiers in Microbiology · doi:10.3389/fmicb.2026.1782917
Janoušková, K., Frei, J., Mainz, D., Papežová, K., Melichová, J., Plančíková, D., Sivčo, P., & Majdán, M. (2026) · BMC Women s Health · doi:10.1186/s12905-026-04467-2 · Cited by 1
“Evidence and international public health authorities emphasize that high participation rates are essential for an effective cervical cancer screening program [3, 7, 14, 27, 28].”
Kovalyov, O., Kovalyov, K., Deinichenko, O. V., Dillner, J., & Mühr, L. S. A. (2026) · BMJ Global Health · doi:10.1136/bmjgh-2026-023478
“As Ukraine prepares to scale cervical cancer prevention alongside the introduction of state-funded HPV vaccination, implementation approaches such as this may contribute meaningfully to progress toward cervical cancer elimination in fragile and humanitarian contexts.”
Paolino, M., Basu, P. S., Lucas, E., Cucchiaro, M., Melnik, E., Nieva, M., Martiarena, N., Ríos, M., Laudi, R., & Arrossi, S. (2026) · Cancer Control · doi:10.1177/10732748261446046
Primäres Zervixkarzinom-Screening
STEINKASSERER, L., Jentschke, M., Hachenberg, J., et al. (2026) · Die Gynäkologie · doi:10.1007/s00129-026-05495-7
Matsunaga, R., Tamura, J., Yamamoto, K., et al. (2026) · JMIR Research Protocols · doi:10.2196/86397
Metadata
- Authors
- Arbyn, M., Smith, S. B., Temin, S., Sultana, F., & Castle, P.
- Affiliations
- Sciensano (Belgium) (BE)
- American Society of Clinical Oncology (US)
- The University of Melbourne (AU)
- Albert Einstein College of Medicine (US)
- Corresponding author
- Arbyn, Marc
- Venue
- BMJ
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 2018-12-05
- Volume
- 363
- Pages
- k4823
- ISSN
- 1756-1833 (ISSN-L)
- 0959-8138
- PMC
- PMC6278587
- OpenAlex
- W2902810541
- Semantic Scholar
- 19a6b46f3981556042ef796240496a98ab9d26f6
- Cited by
- 851
- References
- 130
- Citations by year
- 2026: 93 · 2025: 136 · 2024: 136 · 2023: 137 · 2022: 116 · 2021: 104 · 2020: 89 · 2019: 39
- FWCI
- 39.55
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- BMJ (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- PubMed Central (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
- 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
- cervical cancer screening, HPV testing, self-sampling, cervical intraepithelial neoplasia, CIN2+ detection, diagnostic accuracy, underscreened women, screening uptake, reminder letters, clinician-collected samples, community-based screening
- MeSH terms
- Uterine Cervical Dysplasia, Uterine Cervical Neoplasms, Colposcopy, Female, Humans, Mass Screening, Sensitivity and Specificity, Specimen Handling, Vagina, Vaginal Smears, Incidence, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Papillomaviridae, Papillomavirus Infections, Early Detection of Cancer, Intention to Treat Analysis
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.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-16, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-16 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).
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
