An observational study in Human Papillomavirus Infection, sponsored by Foundation for Innovative New Diagnostics, Switzerland. Suspended at 1 site in Kenya. Open to female participants aged 30 Years to 80 Years. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2026-09-18.
Sponsored by Foundation for Innovative New Diagnostics, Switzerland · Observational
This study will compare the performance of self-collected vaginal swabs, transported without liquid media (dry swabs) and self-collected vaginal swabs, transported in liquid media (wet swabs) for detection of hrHPV DNA LBC as the reference standard.
Self-collected vaginal samples for high-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) DNA testing are a promising alternative cervical cancer screening method for women who are reluctant to undergo healthcare provider-collection of cervical samples. Transportation of self-collected vaginal samples using swabs stored in liquid media incur additional costs and might create testing barriers for women. Dry transport of samples has the advantage of lower cost and ease of handling. Evidence on comparisons between self-collected vaginal samples using the dry swab and those transported in liquid media is limited, particularly in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). The effect of using dry swabs on HPV-DNA detection in LMICs needs to be determined.
This study will compare the performance of self-collected vaginal swabs, transported without liquid media (dry swabs) and self-collected vaginal swabs, transported in liquid media (wet swabs) for detection of hrHPV DNA using LBC and as reference standard.
576 studies on the registry are indexed under Papillomavirus Infections; 132 are open to participants now.
This study's planned enrollment of 1,306 is above the median of 490 across 157 observational studies indexed under Papillomavirus Infections.
Browse Papillomavirus Infections studies →Foundation for Innovative New Diagnostics, Switzerland is the lead sponsor of 61 studies on the registry; 3 are open to participants now.
Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.
Participants are eligible to be included in the study only if all of the inclusion criteria and none of the exclusion criteria indicated below apply.
Prospective approval of protocol deviations to recruitment and enrolment criteria, also known as protocol waivers or exemptions, are not permitted.
Inclusion Criteria: Inclusion criteria for participants screened and enrolled consecutively as they present at the clinical study site:
Exclusion Criteria:
Underlined terms in the criteria open these too. Explained by clinicaltrials.gg, not part of the registry record. The study team decides who can take part.
The human immunodeficiency virus, which weakens the immune system.
Many studies now accept people whose HIV is controlled on treatment, judged by the viral load and the CD4 count. Check the limits this study sets.
Before you join, the study team explains what taking part involves — its purpose, what happens, the risks and possible benefits — and answers your questions, so you can decide freely. Consent is usually recorded on a form (the informed consent form, ICF) signed by you or, where the law allows, by someone legally authorised to decide for you.
You can keep asking questions during the study, you are told of new information that matters, and you can choose to leave at any time.
HIV
The human immunodeficiency virus, which weakens the immune system.
Many studies now accept people whose HIV is controlled on treatment, judged by the viral load and the CD4 count. Check the limits this study sets.
Explained by clinicaltrials.gg, not part of the registry record. The study team decides who can take part.
Informed consent
Before you join, the study team explains what taking part involves — its purpose, what happens, the risks and possible benefits — and answers your questions, so you can decide freely. Consent is usually recorded on a form (the informed consent form, ICF) signed by you or, where the law allows, by someone legally authorised to decide for you.
You can keep asking questions during the study, you are told of new information that matters, and you can choose to leave at any time.
Explained by clinicaltrials.gg, not part of the registry record. The study team decides who can take part.
Multi-center, prospective, paired, comparative diagnostic accuracy study To compare the performance of self-collected vaginal samples transported dry to those transported wet for detection of hrHPV DNA. Interventions: COPAN floq swab transported wet and dry evaluated on Roche COBAS and Cepheid Xpert HPV tests
Device: • COPAN Self-collection FLOQSwabs® (COPAN, Italy)
COPAN swabs evaluated on Roche COBAS and Cepheid Xpert PCRs
Also known as: COPAN Self-collection FLOQSwabs® (COPAN, Italy) with 5ml PreservCyt Solution (Hologic)
To compare the performance of self-collected vaginal dry swabs to self-collected vaginal wet swabs for detection of hrHPV DNA using PCR on health care provider-collected cervical samples as the reference standard.
Relative sensitivity and specificity, along with the percentage difference (with 95% confidence intervals), to compare self-collected vaginal dry swabs to self-collected vaginal wet swabs for detection of hrHPV DNA using PCR as the reference standard.
Time frame: 6 Months
Compare the performance of self-collected vaginal dry swabs to provider-collected cervical samples for detection of hrHPV DNA to screen for CIN2+ lesions using LBC as the reference standard.
Relative sensitivity and specificity, along with the percentage difference (with 95% confidence intervals), to compare self-collected vaginal dry swabs to provider-collected cervical samples for detection of hrHPV to screen for CIN2+ lesions using LBC on health care provider-collected cervical samples as the reference standard.
Time frame: 6 Months
Compare the performance of self-collected vaginal wet swabs to provider-collected cervical samples for detection of hrHPV DNA to screen for CIN2+ lesions using LBC as the reference standard.
Relative sensitivity and specificity, along with the percentage difference (with 95% confidence intervals), to compare self-collected vaginal wet swabs to provider-collected cervical samples for detection of hrHPV to screen for CIN2+ lesions using LBC on health care provider-collected cervical samples as the reference standard.
Time frame: 6 Months
Compare the performance of self-collected vaginal dry swabs to self-collected vaginal wet swabs for detection of hrHPV DNA to screen for CIN2+ lesions using LBC as the reference standard.
Relative sensitivity and specificity, along with the percentage difference (with 95% confidence intervals), to compare self-collected dry swabs to self-collected wet swabs for detection of hrHPV to screen for CIN2+ lesions using LBC on health care provider-collected cervical samples as the reference standard.
Time frame: 6 Months
Assess the acceptability of self-collection vs provider-collection methods for HPV testing amongst women and health care workers.
Assessment of survey responses using descriptive statistics.
Time frame: 6 Months
Assess the usability of self-collection amongst women and to assess the usability of self-collection using vaginal dry swabs compared to self-collection using vaginal wet swabs and provider collection methods for HPV testing amongst health care workers.
Assessment of survey responses using descriptive statistics.
Time frame: 6 Months
Plan to share: No
No publications or documents are linked to this record.
Ran from May 2024 to primary completion in Nov 2024, 6 months.
How these figures are worked out, and which studies are left out of them.
This study is suspended, as verified in Sep 2026. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.
Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.
Sign in to followQuestions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.
Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.
Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.
Foundation for Innovative New Diagnostics, Switzerland