A comparison of cotton and flocked swabs for vaginal self-sample collection

18Citations
Citations of this article
66Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Objective: Vaginal self-sampling for human papillomavirus (HPV) testing has recently been proposed to optimize cervical cancer screening coverage. The objective of this study was to compare the performance of self-taken samples using flocked and cotton swabs for HPV detection and cellular retrieval. Methods: We recruited women aged 21–65 years, referred to colposcopy at the Division of Gynecology of the Geneva University Hospitals between May and September 2016. Each participant collected 2 vaginal samples: 1 with a cotton swab and 1 with a flocked swab. A 1:1 randomization determined the order in which the 2 samples were taken. The swabs were introduced into a 20 mL PreservCyt® vial. Real-time polymerase chain reaction analysis using the Anyplex™ II HPV HR assay, cytofluorometric analysis and cytological cell counting were performed on each sample. Results: A total of 119 participants were recruited in the study. Their mean ± standard deviation age was 35.1±8.9 years. The HPV prevalence was 29.7% and 38.1% according to the cotton and flocked swab, respectively (p=0.006). The mean number of cells collected per milliliter according to cytofluorometry was 96,726.6 with the cotton swab and 425,544.3 with the flocked swab (p<0.001). The mean number of cells detected at cytological cell count was 13,130.42 using the cotton swab and 17,503.6 using the flocked swab (p<0.001). Conclusion: The flocked swab achieved a greater cellular retrieval and showed an improved performance in HPV detection. Further studies are needed to assess the usability and cost-effectiveness of the 2 self-sampling devices.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Viviano, M., Willame, A., Cohen, M., Benski, A. C., Catarino, R., Wuillemin, C., … Vassilakos, P. (2018). A comparison of cotton and flocked swabs for vaginal self-sample collection. International Journal of Women’s Health, 10, 229–236. https://doi.org/10.2147/IJWH.S157897

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free