↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Self- versus physician-collected samples for the follow-up of human papillomavirus-positive women in sub-Saharan Africa

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of Women's Health, April 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (83rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
59 Mendeley
Title
Self- versus physician-collected samples for the follow-up of human papillomavirus-positive women in sub-Saharan Africa
Published in
International Journal of Women's Health, April 2018
DOI 10.2147/ijwh.s154212
Pubmed ID
Authors

Manuela Viviano, Phuong Lien Tran, Bruno Kenfack, Rosa Catarino, Mohamed Akaaboune, Liliane Temogne, Eveline Tincho Foguem, Pierre Vassilakos, Patrick Petignat

Abstract

Human papillomavirus (HPV) testing is a suitable tool for primary cervical cancer (CC) screening and follow-up in low-resource settings. Vaginal samples taken by women themselves (Self-HPV) are an interesting alternative to physician-performed sampling (Dr-HPV). Our aim was to assess the performance of Self-HPV and Dr-HPV at 6 and 12 months following a CC screening campaign. This study was carried out at the Dschang District Hospital, Cameroon. Women aged 30-49 years were recruited in a CC screening campaign. HPV-positive women, of whom 2/3 were treated with thermoablation because of abnormal results at baseline screening, were invited to participate in a follow-up study. Self- and Dr-HPV, as well as cytology, were performed at 6 and 12 months. HPV samples were analyzed using the Xpert HPV assay. Sensitivity and specificity for the detection of low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion or worse and of high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion or worse were calculated for Self-HPV and Dr-HPV, using cytology as the reference diagnosis. Overall, 188 HPV-positive women were invited to attend follow-up. The obtained follow-up visits' attendance was 154 (81.9%) and 131 (69.7%) at 6 and 12 months, respectively. While the overall performance of Dr-HPV at 6 months was slightly superior, Self-HPV showed an improved sensitivity for HSIL+ detection at 12 months when compared with Dr-HPV (83.3% [95% CI 41.8-98.9] versus 71.4% [95% CI 21.5-95.8], respectively). The overall HPV positivity agreement between Self- and Dr-HPV at 6 and 12 months corresponded to a κ value of 0.62 and 0.52, respectively. Among women treated with thermoablation (n=121) at baseline screening, Self-HPV was as sensitive as Dr-HPV, although less specific (P=0.003). Self-HPV is a valuable tool for the follow-up of HPV-positive women in low-resource settings. Larger, randomized trials are needed to confirm the validity of our findings.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 59 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 59 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 10 17%
Student > Master 7 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 8%
Other 4 7%
Student > Bachelor 3 5%
Other 9 15%
Unknown 21 36%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 27%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 14%
Social Sciences 4 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 5%
Immunology and Microbiology 2 3%
Other 4 7%
Unknown 22 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 22 January 2019.
All research outputs
#2,751,586
of 25,584,565 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Women's Health
#163
of 850 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#55,908
of 344,304 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Women's Health
#4
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,584,565 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 850 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 344,304 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 5 of them.