ArticleBritish journal of cancer2004
An evaluation of liquid-based cytology and human papillomavirus testing within the UK cervical cancer screening programme.
Article in British journal of cancer, 2004. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
15 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- A systematic review of economic evaluations of cervical cancer screening methods.Systematic reviews · 2022Pooled it
- Simple but not simpler: a systematic review of Markov models for economic evaluation of cervical cancer screening.Clinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil) · 2018Pooled it
- Cost-effectiveness of strategies to increase cervical screening uptake at first invitation (STRATEGIC).Journal of medical screening · 2018Pooled it
- Options for managing low grade cervical abnormalities detected at screening: cost effectiveness study.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2009Trial
- Comparative Analysis of HPV Detection Efficiency: Evaluating Cobas 8800 Performance in Vaginal Self-Sampling versus Clinician-Collected Samples at a Regional Thai Hospital.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Cost-Effectiveness of Primary HPV Testing, Cytology and Co-testing as Cervical Cancer Screening for Women Above Age 30 Years.Journal of general internal medicine · 2016Article
- Cost effectiveness of human papillomavirus test of cure after treatment for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia in England: economic analysis from NHS Sentinel Sites Study.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2012Article
- Cost and logistics of alternative roll-out options for implementing human papillomavirus testing as a triage in cervical screening: results of the sentinel sites study.British journal of cancer · 2012Article
- Cost-effectiveness of cervical cancer screening with primary human papillomavirus testing in Norway.British journal of cancer · 2012Article
- Primary screening for human papillomavirus compared with cytology screening for cervical cancer in European settings: cost effectiveness analysis based on a Dutch microsimulation model.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2012Article
- Calibration methods used in cancer simulation models and suggested reporting guidelines.PharmacoEconomics · 2009Review
- Trade-offs in cervical cancer prevention: balancing benefits and risks.Archives of internal medicine · 2008Article
- Cost-effectiveness of cervical cancer screening with human papillomavirus DNA testing and HPV-16,18 vaccination.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2008Article
- Estimating the long-term impact of a prophylactic human papillomavirus 16/18 vaccine on the burden of cervical cancer in the UK.British journal of cancer · 2007Article
- Lifetime effects, costs, and cost effectiveness of testing for human papillomavirus to manage low grade cytological abnormalities: results of the NHS pilot studies.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2006Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of this study is to evaluate different options for introducing liquid-based cytology (LBC) and human papillomavirus (HPV) testing into the UK cervical cancer screening programme. These include options that incorporate HPV testing either as a triage for mild and borderline smear abnormalities or as a primary screening test. Outcomes include the predicted impact on resource use, total cost, life years and cost-effectiveness. Extensive sensitivity analysis has been carried out to explore the importance of the uncertainty associated with disease natural history and the impact of screening. Under baseline assumptions, the cost-effectiveness of different options for introducing LBC appears favourable, and these results are consistent under a range of assumptions for its impact on the diagnostic effectiveness of cytology. However, if we assume a higher marginal cost of LBC in comparison to conventional methods, primary smear testing options are predicted to be more cost-effective without LBC. Combined LBC primary smear and HPV testing with a 5-year interval is similar in both cost and effectiveness to the other 3-yearly options of primary smear testing or primary HPV testing alone. However, both primary HPV testing and combined options would give rise to a far greater risk of inappropriate colposcopy throughout a woman's lifetime. British Journal of Cancer (2004) 91, 84-91. doi:10.1038/sj.bjc.6601884 www.bjcancer.com Published online 25 May 2004
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.