Back

HPV Self-Sampling in Cervical Screening: A Rapid Review

Tesha, N. A.; Nevill, C.; Taylor-Rowan, M.; Mulholland, R.; Quinn, T.; Noel-Storr, A.; Sutton, A. J.; Wu, O.

2026-06-15 public and global health
10.64898/2026.06.12.26354841 medRxiv
Show abstract

Introduction Cervical cancer is the fourth largest cause of cancer deaths in women. HPV self-sampling could increase uptake of cervical screening. This rapid review aimed to determine the accuracy, concordance, uptake and acceptability of self-sampling over clinician-collected samples in high income countries. Method We followed Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods. Top-up of 4 systematic reviews and meta-analyses was performed. Narrative data synthesis was conducted and meta-analysis where applicable. Databases searched were MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL and clinical trial registries. Risk of bias was assessed using AMSTAR 2, QUADAS, the Cochrane Risk of Bias (RoB), or the Nudelman and Otto, 2020 tool, depending on the study type. Findings The review included 39 studies for accuracy, 38 studies for concordance, 37 uptake and 48 studies for acceptability. Self-sampling has similar accuracy as clinician-collected samples when PCR-based assays are used. The overall agreement of self-sampling and clinician-collected samples was 87.1%(95%CI;85.6-88.6) with a kappa value of 0.70(95%CI;0.67-0.73). Mail-to-all strategies had higher uptake with participation differences of 11.3%(95%CI:8.4-14.2) in the intention-to-treat analysis and 7.7%(95%CI:4.7-10.8) in the per protocol analysis. Self-sampling is acceptable to non-attendees (91%(95%CI;85.3-94.6). Conclusion and Recommendation Self-sampling shows good performance on the four clinical effectiveness indicators of accuracy, concordance, uptake and acceptability.

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
PLOS ONE
5266 papers in training set
Top 5%
27.7%
2
BMJ Open
601 papers in training set
Top 2%
10.2%
3
Cancer Medicine
26 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
5.7%
4
JMIR Research Protocols
21 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.6%
5
JNCI Cancer Spectrum
10 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.5%
50% of probability mass above
6
BMC Cancer
67 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
3.6%
7
Diagnostics
50 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
3.2%
8
PLOS Medicine
110 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
2.8%
9
PLOS Global Public Health
344 papers in training set
Top 4%
2.8%
10
JAMA Network Open
130 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.8%
11
eLife
5828 papers in training set
Top 52%
1.5%
12
International Journal of Cancer
49 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
1.2%
13
The Lancet Regional Health - Western Pacific
15 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.2%
14
BMC Infectious Diseases
133 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.2%
15
Archives of Public Health
14 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.1%
16
BMC Medicine
176 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.1%
17
Public Health
36 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.9%
18
BMJ Public Health
25 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.6%
19
BMC Public Health
158 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.6%
20
BMJ
51 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.6%
21
Frontiers in Public Health
148 papers in training set
Top 7%
0.5%
22
Clinical Infectious Diseases
235 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.5%
23
International Journal of Epidemiology
88 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.5%
24
Journal of Medical Internet Research
87 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.5%
25
Nature Communications
5641 papers in training set
Top 61%
0.5%
26
Clinical Microbiology and Infection
62 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.5%
27
Health Expectations
14 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.5%
28
JMIR Public Health and Surveillance
45 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.5%