.png){kind=icon}
.png){kind=icon}
Return
A systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy of urine self-sampling for human papillomavirus detection in cervical cancer screening
.png){kind=icon}
PRE
AI
A
A
G
A
K
P
P
DOI：10.1177/09691413261471634.png)
.png){kind=icon}
Original request for help.png){kind=icon}
Share.png){kind=icon}
Save
Abstract
En 中文
<jats:sec>
<jats:title>Objective</jats:title>
<jats:p>This review assessed the diagnostic accuracy of urine self-sampling for human papillomavirus (HPV) detection compared with clinician-collected cervical and vaginal samples.</jats:p>
</jats:sec>
<jats:sec>
<jats:title>Methods</jats:title>
<jats:p>A systematic search of PubMed, and Embase (January 2013–October 2023) identified full-text English studies evaluating urine-based HPV testing conducted in clinical settings and compared with provider-collected samples. Data were extracted using a standardised form, with sensitivity and specificity as primary outcomes. Risk of bias was assessed using QUADAS-2 and QUADAS-C tools. The review followed PRISMA-P guidelines and was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42024511154). A random-effects meta-analysis summarised diagnostic accuracy.</jats:p>
</jats:sec>
<jats:sec>
<jats:title>Results</jats:title>
<jats:p>Of 1657 citations, 13 studies met the inclusion criteria. Urine sampling showed lower sensitivity for detecting high-risk HPV and high-risk HPV-associated high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (HSIL) than vaginal samples, although specificities were comparable (87% for urine vs. 88% for vaginal samples). Sensitivity for detecting high-risk HPV-HSIL was 75% for urine, compared with 92% for vaginal and 95% for cervical samples. Cervical samples demonstrated the highest diagnostic accuracy, followed by vaginal samples, while urine samples performed the lowest on the summary receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve.</jats:p>
</jats:sec>
<jats:sec>
<jats:title>Conclusion</jats:title>
<jats:p>Urine self-sampling is a non-invasive and acceptable option but demonstrates reduced sensitivity compared with vaginal and cervical sampling. Despite lower accuracy, its convenience may support screening among women who might otherwise not participate.</jats:p>
</jats:sec>
Journal
IF:
2.3
Papers:
73
Citations:
1.3K