Abstract:Abstract Objective To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of high-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) assays on self samples and the efficacy of self sampling strategies to reach underscreened women. Design Updated meta-analysis. Data sources Medline (PubMed), Embase, and CENTRAL from 1 January 2013 to 15 April 2018 (accuracy review), and 1 January 2014 to 15 April 2018 (participation review). Review methods Accuracy review: hrHPV assay on a vaginal self sample and a clinician sample; and verification of the presence of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse (CIN2+) by colposcopy and biopsy in all enrolled women or in women with positive tests. Participation review: study population included women who were irregularly or never screened; women in the self sampling arm (intervention arm) were invited to collect a self sample for hrHPV testing; women in the control arm were invited or reminded to undergo a screening test on a clinician sample; participation in both arms was documented; and a population minimum of 400 women. Results 56 accuracy studies and 25 participation trials were included. hrHPV assays based on polymerase chain reaction were as sensitive on self samples as on clinician samples to detect CIN2+ or CIN3+ (pooled ratio 0.99, 95% confidence interval 0.97 to 1.02). However, hrHPV assays based on signal amplification were less sensitive on self samples (pooled ratio 0.85, 95% confidence interval 0.80 to 0.89). The specificity to exclude CIN2+ was 2% or 4% lower on self samples than on clinician samples, for hrHPV assays based on polymerase chain reaction or signal amplification, respectively. Mailing self sample kits to the woman’s home address generated higher response rates to have a sample taken by a clinician than invitation or reminder letters (pooled relative participation in intention-to-treat-analysis of 2.33, 95% confidence interval 1.86 to 2.91). Opt-in strategies where women had to request a self sampling kit were generally not more effective than invitation letters (relative participation of 1.22, 95% confidence interval 0.93 to 1.61). Direct offer of self sampling devices to women in communities that were underscreened generated high participation rates (>75%). Substantial interstudy heterogeneity was noted (I 2 >95%). Conclusions When used with hrHPV assays based on polymerase chain reaction, testing on self samples was similarly accurate as on clinician samples. Offering self sampling kits generally is more effective in reaching underscreened women than sending invitations. However, since response rates are highly variable among settings, pilots should be set up before regional or national roll out of self sampling strategies.

Diagnostic Accuracy of the Daye Diagnostic Tampon Compared to Clinician-Collected and Self-Collected Vaginal Swabs for Detecting HPV: A Comparative Study

Epidemiology Characteristics and Potential Cervical Cancer Screening Value of Vulvar Human Papillomavirus in Chinese Women

Clinical Significance of Genotyping for Human Papillomavirus (HPV) 16 18/45 Combined with Cytology in Cervical Exfoliated Cells in HPV Oncogenic Mrna-Positive Women

Evaluation of a novel vaginal cells self‐sampling device for human papillomavirus testing in cervical cancer screening: A clinical trial assessing reliability and acceptability

A comparative study of self-collected versus clinician-collected specimens in detecting high-risk HPV infection: a prospective cross-sectional study

Epidemiology Characteristics and Potential Clinical Value of Vulvar Human Papillomavirus in Chinese Women: A Multicenter Cross-Sectional Study.

Improved Sensitivity of Vaginal Self-Collection and High-Risk Human Papillomavirus Testing.

Performance of human papillomavirus (HPV) mRNA testing and HPV 16 and 18/45 genotyping combined with age stratification in the triaging of women with ASC-US cytology.

Performance of human papillomavirus (HPV) mRNA testing and HPV 16 and 18/45 genotyping combined with age stratification in the triaging of women with ASC-US cytology

Detecting cervical precancer and reaching underscreened women by using HPV testing on self samples: updated meta-analyses

Clinical validation of hrHPV testing on vaginal and urine self-samples in primary cervical screening (cross-sectional results from the Papillomavirus Dumfries and Galloway—PaVDaG study)

HPV-Based Self-Sampling in Cervical Cancer Screening: An Updated Review of the Current Evidence in the Literature

Urine high‐risk human papillomavirus testing as an alternative to routine cervical screening: A comparative diagnostic accuracy study of two urine collection devices using a randomised study design trial

Performance of Human Papillomavirus (HPV) 16 and 18/45 Genotyping Combined with Age Stratification in the Triaging of Women with Histologic Low-Grade Squamous Intraepithelial Lesions Preceded by HPV Oncogenic Mrna-Positive/normal or Mildly Abnormal Cytology: A Longitudinal Study

Consistency in human papillomavirus type detection between self‐collected vaginal specimens and physician‐sampled cervical specimens

Feasibility and Accuracy of Menstrual Blood Testing for High-risk Human Papillomavirus Detection With Capture Sequencing

Evaluation of self-collected vaginal specimens for the detection of high-risk human papillomavirus infection and the prediction of high-grade cervical intraepithelial lesions in a high-burden, low-resource setting

Comparative Analysis of HPV Detection Efficiency: Evaluating Cobas 8800 Performance in Vaginal Self-Sampling versus Clinician-Collected Samples at a Regional Thai Hospital

The Effectiveness of HPV16 and HPV18 Genotyping and Cytology with Different Thresholds for the Triage of Human Papillomavirus-Based Screening on Self-Collected Samples

The performance of human papillomavirus DNA detection with type 16/18 genotyping by hybrid capture in primary test of cervical cancer screening: a cross-sectional study in 10,669 Chinese women

Clinical Performance of OncoPredict HPV Screening Assay on Self-Collected Vaginal and Urine Specimens Within the VALHUDES Framework