P-545 Efficacy, safety and acceptability of a vaginal tampon for the collection of biospecimen samples: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Study question Are self-collected vaginal tampons, as a biospecimen collection tool, comparable to current gold-standard methods in their efficacy, safety and acceptability? Summary answer Tampon efficacy for detection of gynaecological abnormalities was comparable to that of gold-standard methods in addition to being widely accepted with minimal reported adverse effects. What is known already Women’s services have poor attendance. Fear and embarrassment surrounding gynaecological health remain prevalent. Numerous long term sequalae can result from lack of gynaecological care include pelvic inflammatory disease, infertility and malignancy. Self-collection vaginal tampon samples have the potential to increase screening and diagnosis rates for multiple gynaecological conditions. Although the menstrual tampon as a biospecimen collection device has been demonstrated to be able to identify various gynaecological abnormalities, currently, possibly due to its novelty and lack of information on validity, they are not routinely used. Study design, size, duration Systematic review was conducted following PRISMA guidelines and prospectively registered with PROSPERO (CRD42022374857). A primary search through online databases was conducted, identifying 151 studies. Following this, title and abstract screening, full-text review and forward and backward citation searching were conducted in respective order, leading to a total of 92 studies for analysis. Participants/materials, setting, methods PubMed, MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched for eligible studies. All primary studies reporting the acceptability, efficacy or safety of vaginal tampons as a biospecimen collection device in comparison to other conventional methods of collection were included. Data was stratified based on which quantitative and/or qualitative variables were reported, baseline characteristics, and the abnormality being screened for. The Modified Newcastle Ottawa scale was used to assess risk of bias. Main results and the role of chance This systematic search identified 92 eligible studies, exploring HIV, HPV, HSV, Chlamydia trachomatis, Neisseria gonorrhoeae, cervical cancer, endometrial cancer, bacterial vaginosis, Candida albicans, Actinomyces israelii, Gardnerella vaginalis, Atopobium vaginae, and Trichomonas vaginalis. Menstrual tampons were compared to both clinician and self-collected samples including an endocervical swab, cervical brushing, cervicovaginal lavage, various tissue biopsies and urine samples. Detection of most gynaecological abnormalities did not profoundly vary between tampon collection versus gold-standard method. Self- collected tampon specimens were widely accepted with factors including lower pain scores, a greater willingness to use, convenient accessibility (especially in developing areas), and avoidance of embarrassment being reported. Very few papers reported adverse side effects and in those that did, vaginal tampon collection methods were regarded as less traumatic with a decreased likelihood of bleeding as compared to other methods including cervical swabs. Limitations, reasons for caution The effect of tampon sampling prior to other specimen collection methods could contribute to results that favoured tampon collection. A biopsy was not performed in some studies, leading to an unknown true disease status. Wider implications of the findings The use of menstrual tampons in clinical practice may help overcome barriers to accessing healthcare and participation in screening, necessary for preventing avoidable gynaecological conditions and their associated long-term complications. Further research is required to explore the optimisation of tampon specimen collection, including transportation and storage requirements. Trial registration number Not applicable
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,004 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,006 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».