Related Experiment Video
Updated: Apr 2, 2026
A Novel Use of Three-dimensional High-frequency Ultrasonography for Early Pregnancy Characterization in the Mouse
Published on: October 24, 2017
Comparison of Cervical Screening at 6- and 12-Weeks Postnatal: A Paired-Sample Feasibility Study
Victoria A Cullimore1,2, Tessa Dean1, Kim Chu3
1Department of Gynaecological Oncology, GRACE Centre, Musgrove Park Hospital, Somerset NHS Foundation Trust, Taunton, Somerset, UK.
Objective:
Feasibility of a paired-sample study comparing cervical screening and urine self-sampling at 6- and 12-weeks postnatal.
Design:
Paired-sample feasibility study.
Setting:
Acute hospital.
Population Or Sample:
Females within 6 weeks of childbirth.
Methods:
Paired-sample study comparing cervical screening and high-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) testing from clinician-taken samples and urine self-samples at 6- and 12-weeks postnatal.
Main Outcome Measures:
Uptake rates, patient-reported outcomes, adverse events, HPV detection, relative HPV sensitivity and specificity.
Results:
Of 245 potential participants, 115 (47%) consented, 102 (89%) and 96 (83%) attended their 6- and 12-week screening visits, respectively. Median pain scores for cervical screening did not differ (6-weeks = 1; 12-weeks = 1; p = 0.76). Most would be happy for future screening at 6-weeks postnatal, 97/102 (95%) and 85/95 (89%) when asked at 6- and 12-week study visits, respectively. Agreement rate of clinician-taken HPV tests between 6- and 12-weeks was 94.8% (91/96, 95% confidence interval [CI], 88.4%-97.8%), with no inadequate combination HPV/cytology tests (6 vs. 12-week: sensitivity 80% [95% CI, 44.4-97.5]; specificity 96.5% [95% CI 90.1-99.3]). Relative to 12-week clinician-taken samples, urine self-sampling may have lower sensitivity for HPV (e.g., 6-week: sensitivity 60.0% [95% CI 26.2-87.8]; specificity 96.5% [95% CI 90.1-99.3]; NPV 95.4% [95% CI 88.6-98.7]).
Conclusions:
A paired-sample study of cervical screening at 6- and 12-weeks is feasible. Inadequacy rates of cervical screening were low, with high agreement. Urine self-sampling may be less sensitive in this population.
