HPV SELF-SAMPLING VERSUS CLINICIAN-COLLECTED HPV TESTING FOR CERVICAL CANCER SCREENING: SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS
Self-sampling, Cervical cytology, HPV DNA/RNA Tests, Cervical cancer.
Background: Cervical cancer is a leading cause of female mortality globally. HPV testing is the first-line recommended test; self-sampling HPV DNA/RNA testing is a promising alternative, but its diagnostic accuracy requires validation. To compare the diagnostic performance of self-sampled HPV DNA/RNA testing against health care professional collected samples for Cervical Cancer Screening. Methods: We conducted a search Databases of PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Scopus, LILACS searched from inception through July 1, 2026. Cross-sectional studies comparing sensitivity and specificity of self-sampled HPV DNA/RNA testing in women (25–65 years) against health care professional-collected samples for cytology or HPV test. Two authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias (QUADAS-2). Pooled sensitivity and specificity estimates were calculated for diagnostic performance. Results: 54 studies (n=84,747) were included. For detection of CIN2+, health care professional collected HPV testing showed the highest pooled sensitivity (0,92; IC 95%: 0,89–0,95), followed by HPV self-sampling (0,87; IC 95%: 0,82–0,90), and cytology (0,74; IC 95%: 0,67–0,80). Conversely, specificity was highest for cytology (0,91; IC 95%: 0,88–0,93) compared to Clinician-Collected HPV (0,55; IC 95%: 0,45–0,64) and self-sampled HPV testing (0,58; IC 95%: 0,50–0,66). Conclusions: Self- sampling for HPV DNA/RNA exhibits strong diagnostic performance, with results comparable to clinician-collected samples. Integrating self-sampling into screening programs could significantly improve accessibility, coverage, and equity in underserved populations.