Are self-collected samples comparable to physician-collected cervical specimens for human papillomavirus DNA testing? A systematic review and meta-analysis

Author(s): Petignat P, Faltin DL, Bruchim I, Tramèr MR, Franco EL, et al.


Objective: To compare the detection rate of genital human papillomavirus (HPV) infection in self- and physician-obtained samples.

Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Data sources: Studies published between 1966 and November 2005 identified through Medline and Embase that compared both sampling methods.

Main outcome measures: We calculated the concordance and kappa statistic between physician- and self-sampling and the difference between proportions of HPV positive samples. Weighted averages were reported with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using a random-effects model.

Results: Eighteen studies (5441 participants) were included that evaluated broad HPV type categories, 10 (3688 patients) that of high-risk (HR) HPV and three (530) that of low-risk (LR) HPV. A high level of concordance of 0.87 (95%CI, 0.82 to 0.91) between self- and physician-sampling was obtained for detection of HPV DNA (kappa 0.66, 95%CI, 0.56 to 0.76). The prevalence difference of HPV DNA between sampling methods was -0.5 (95%CI, -2.8 to 1.8). Results were similar when restricting the analysis to HR-HPV but the prevalence of LR-HPV types was higher in self-collected samples.

Conclusion: Self-sampling was as sensitive as physician-obtained sampling to detect HR-HPV or HPV DNA. Self-sampling may be a suitable alternative method for studies on HPV transmission and vaccine trials.

Similar Articles

Comparison of non-invasive sampling methods for detection of HPV in rural African women

Author(s): Lack N, West B, Jeffries D, Ekpo G, Morison L, et al.

Prevalence of genital HPV infections and HPV serology in adolescent girls, prior to vaccination

Author(s): Mollers M, Scherpenisse M, van der Klis FR, King AJ, van Rossum TG, et al.

A review of human carcinogens--Part B: biological agents

Author(s): Bouvard V, Baan R, Straif K, Grosse Y, Secretan B, et al.

The 2001 Bethesda System: terminology for reporting results of cervical cytology

Author(s): Solomon D, Davey D, Kurman R, Moriarty A, O'Connor D, et al.

Self-sampling versus physician-sampling for human papillomavirus testing

Author(s): Agorastos T, Dinas K, Lloveras B, Font R, Kornegay JR, et al.

Comparison of type-specific human papillomavirus data from self and clinician directed sampling

Author(s): Baldwin S, Santos C, Mendez Brown E, Nuño T, Giuliano A, et al.

A comparison of cervical and vaginal human papillomavirus

Author(s): Castle PE, Rodriguez AC, Porras C, Herrero R, Schiffman M, et al.

Self-sampling for human papillomavirus in a community setting: feasibility in Hispanic women

Author(s): De Alba I, Anton-Culver H, Hubbell FA, Ziogas A, Hess JR, et al.

Self-collected human papillomavirus testing acceptability: comparison of two self-sampling modalities

Author(s): Igidbashian S, Boveri S, Spolti N, Radice D, Sandri MT, et al.

ACOG Committee Opinion No

Author(s): American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists