Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22389347›Full record

ArticleBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2012

Cost effectiveness of strategies to combat breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer in sub-Saharan Africa and South East Asia: mathematical modelling study.

Gary M Ginsberg, Jeremy A Lauer, Sten Zelle, Steef Baeten, Rob Baltussen

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 60 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
60citing papers in PubMed, 8 pooled it
7.6field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

60 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 139 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.

Gary M GinsbergDepartment of Medical Technology Assessment, Ministry of Health, Ben Tbai 2, San Simone, Jerusalem, Israel. gary.ginsberg@moh.health.gov.il
Jeremy A Lauer
Sten Zelle
Steef Baeten
Rob Baltussen
Radboud University Medical Center · NLErasmus University Rotterdam · NLIsrael Ministry of Health · ILWorld Health Organization · CH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo determine the costs and health effects of interventions to combat breast, cervical, and colorectal cancers in order to guide resource allocation decisions in developing countries.

settingTwo World Health Organization sub-regions of the world: countries in sub-Saharan Africa with very high adult and high child mortality (AfrE); and countries in South East Asia with high adult and high child mortality (SearD).

designCost effectiveness analysis of prevention and treatment strategies for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer, using mathematical modelling based on a lifetime population model. DATA SOURCES: Demographic and epidemiological data were taken from the WHO mortality and global burden of disease databases. Estimates of intervention coverage, effectiveness, and resource needs were based on clinical trials, treatment guidelines, and expert opinion. Unit costs were taken from the WHO-CHOICE price database.

main outcome measuresCost per disability adjusted life year (DALY) averted, expressed in international dollars ($Int) for the year 2005.

resultsIn both regions certain interventions in cervical cancer control (screening through cervical smear tests or visual inspection with acetic acid in combination with treatment) and colorectal cancer control (increasing the coverage of treatment interventions) cost <$Int2000 per DALY averted and can be considered highly cost effective. In the sub-Saharan African region screening for colorectal cancer (by colonoscopy at age 50 in combination with treatment) costs $Int2000-6000 per DALY averted and can be considered cost effective. In both regions certain interventions in breast cancer control (treatment of all cancer stages in combination with mammography screening) cost $Int2000-6000 per DALY averted and can also be considered cost effective. Other interventions, such as campaigns to eat more fruit and vegetable or subsidies in colorectal cancer control, are not cost effective according to the criteria defined.

conclusionHighly cost effective interventions to combat cervical and colorectal cancer are available in the African and Asian sub-regions. In cervical cancer control, these include screening through smear tests or visual inspection in combination with treatment. In colorectal cancer, increasing treatment coverage is highly cost effective (screening through colonoscopy is cost effective in the African sub-region). In breast cancer control, mammography screening in combination with treatment of all stages is cost effective.

Indexed as

Models, TheoreticalAdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overBreast NeoplasmsColorectal NeoplasmsCost-Benefit AnalysisFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedUterine Cervical NeoplasmsYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID22389347
PMCPMC3292522
OpenAlexW2024399893

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.