Cited by 58Cervical Cancer and HPV ResearchWomen's cancer prevention and managementGlobal Cancer Incidence and Screening

A randomized controlled trial in non-responders from Newcastle upon Tyne invited to return a self-sample for Human Papillomavirus testing versus repeat invitation for cervical screening

Cadman, Louise, Wilkes, Scott, Mansour, Diana, Austin, Janet, Ashdown-Barr, Lesley, Edwards, Rob, Kleeman, Michelle, Szarewski, Anne·2015·Journal of Medical Screening

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Non-attenders for cervical screening are at increased risk of cervical cancer. Studies offering self-sampling for high-risk Human Papillomavirus (HrHPV) testing have shown greater uptake than sending another invitation for cytology. OBJECTIVES: To explore whether uptake would increase in a less diverse, more stable population than the previous English study, which demonstrated a lower response rate than other studies. The primary objective was whether non-attenders were more likely to respond to a postal invitation, including kit, to collect a self-sample compared with a further invitation for cytology screening. The secondary objective was whether women with an abnormal result would attend for follow-up. METHODS: 6000 non-attenders for screening in this pragmatic, randomized (1:1) controlled trial in Newcastle-upon-Tyne were sent an HPV self-sample kit (intervention) or a further invitation for cytology screening (comparator). RESULTS: 411(13%) responded to the intervention, returning a self-sample (247(8%)) or attending for cytology (164(5%)), compared with 183(6%) attending for cytology, relative risk 2.25 (95% CI 1.90-2.65) (comparator arm). Of those testing hrHPV positive (32(13%)), 19(59%) subsequently attended cytology screening. Of those in the intervention group who attended for cytology screening without returning an hrHPV self-sample (n = 164), 5% (n = 8) were referred for colposcopy - all attended. In the comparator group eight of the nine referred for colposcopy attended. CONCLUSION: Persistent non-responders to invitations for cervical screening are significantly more likely to respond to a postal invitation to return a self-collected sample for HPV testing than a further invitation for cytology screening. However, just over half followed up on this positive HPV result.

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 · 10.1177/0969141314558785

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 [114]

    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)

    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

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. [3]3. NHS Cervical Screening Programme Statistical Bulletin, England 2012-2013. Health and Social Care Information Centre. 2013.
  2. [20]20. Forrest S, McCaffery K, Waller J, et al. Attitudes to selfsampling for HPV among Indian, Pakistani, AfricanCaribbean and white British women in Manchester, UK. J Med Screen 2004; 11 :85-88.
  3. [38]38. Department for Communities and Local Government. English Indices of Deprivation 2010. In: Department for Communities and Local Government, (ed.). London 2011.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Cadman, L., Wilkes, S., Mansour, D., Austin, J., Ashdown-Barr, L., Edwards, R., Kleeman, M., & Szarewski, A.
Affiliations
  • Queen Mary University of London (GB)
  • University of Sunderland (GB)
  • Newcastle Hospitals, Community Health, New Croft Centre, Market Street (East), Newcastle upon Tyne, NE1 6ND
Corresponding author
Wilkes, Scott
Venue
Journal of Medical Screening
Published
2014-11-17
Volume
22
Issue
1
Pages
28-37
ISSN
  • 0969-1413 (ISSN-L)
  • 1475-5793
OpenAlex
W2004590309
Cited by
58
References
41
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 2
FWCI
2.53
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Medical Screening (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Sunderland Repository (University of Sunderland) (acceptedVersion)
Funders
Cancer Research UK (C8162/A10406, C569/A10404)
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, high-risk HPV testing, cytology screening, follow-up attendance, colposcopy referral, Newcastle upon Tyne
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Uterine Cervical Dysplasia, Uterine Cervical Neoplasms, England, Female, Humans, Mass Screening, Middle Aged, Patient Compliance, Specimen Handling, Vaginal Smears, Papillomavirus Infections, 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