Revista da Associacao Medica Brasileira (1992) · 2026
Self-collected versus clinician-collected human papillomavirus samples.
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеКонтролируемое клиническое исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Bülbü Ramazan, Horasanlı Jule Eriç, Erdoğan Arif Caner, Akkuş Fatih
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the comparability of self-collected and clinician-collected samples for human papillomavirus detection, cytological findings, and identification of infectious agents.
METHODS: This prospective controlled clinical trial enrolled 124 women aged 30-65 years due for routine cervical cancer screening. This prospective comparative study enrolled 124 women aged 30-65 years who were eligible for routine cervical cancer screening. Participants were allocated to either a clinician-collected control group (n=51) or a self-collected group (n=73) via systematic allocation based on clinic registration order. Viral deoxyribonucleic acid analysis was performed by multiplex real-time polymerase chain reaction; cytological evaluation followed the Bethesda classification system. Infectious agents and participant satisfaction were also assessed. Laboratory personnel were blinded to group allocation.
RESULTS: Overall human papillomavirus positivity was 21.8% (27/124), with rates of 27.5% (14/51) in the control group and 17.8% (13/73) in the self-collected group (p=0.200). Cytological abnormalities were detected in 5.5% of self-collected samples (three cases of atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance, one case of atypical squamous cells cannot exclude high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion) versus 0% in the control group (p=0.236). Inflammatory smear findings, Candida (9.8 vs. 8.2%), and Trichomonas vaginalis (0 vs. 1.4%) detection rates were similar between groups. Mean satisfaction score was 12.6±1.62 out of 16 (78.8% positive responses).
CONCLUSION: Self-collected human papillomavirus sampling yields results diagnostically comparable to clinician-collected specimens. Self collected human papillomavirus sampling demonstrated similar human papillomavirus detection rates compared with clinician-collected specimens. Given its feasibility and high acceptability, self-collection may serve as an effective complementary approach in cervical cancer screening programs, particularly for reaching women who have not previously participated in screening.
METHODS: This prospective controlled clinical trial enrolled 124 women aged 30-65 years due for routine cervical cancer screening. This prospective comparative study enrolled 124 women aged 30-65 years who were eligible for routine cervical cancer screening. Participants were allocated to either a clinician-collected control group (n=51) or a self-collected group (n=73) via systematic allocation based on clinic registration order. Viral deoxyribonucleic acid analysis was performed by multiplex real-time polymerase chain reaction; cytological evaluation followed the Bethesda classification system. Infectious agents and participant satisfaction were also assessed. Laboratory personnel were blinded to group allocation.
RESULTS: Overall human papillomavirus positivity was 21.8% (27/124), with rates of 27.5% (14/51) in the control group and 17.8% (13/73) in the self-collected group (p=0.200). Cytological abnormalities were detected in 5.5% of self-collected samples (three cases of atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance, one case of atypical squamous cells cannot exclude high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion) versus 0% in the control group (p=0.236). Inflammatory smear findings, Candida (9.8 vs. 8.2%), and Trichomonas vaginalis (0 vs. 1.4%) detection rates were similar between groups. Mean satisfaction score was 12.6±1.62 out of 16 (78.8% positive responses).
CONCLUSION: Self-collected human papillomavirus sampling yields results diagnostically comparable to clinician-collected specimens. Self collected human papillomavirus sampling demonstrated similar human papillomavirus detection rates compared with clinician-collected specimens. Given its feasibility and high acceptability, self-collection may serve as an effective complementary approach in cervical cancer screening programs, particularly for reaching women who have not previously participated in screening.