Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22391612›Full record

ArticleBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2012

Primary screening for human papillomavirus compared with cytology screening for cervical cancer in European settings: cost effectiveness analysis based on a Dutch microsimulation model.

Inge M C M de Kok, Joost van Rosmalen, Joakim Dillner, Marc Arbyn, Peter Sasieni, Thomas Iftner, Marjolein van Ballegooijen

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
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 31 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

31 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Human Papillomavirus (HPV) Prevalence and Type Distribution in Urban Areas of Malaysia.Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP · 2021
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Inge M C M de KokErasmus MC, University Medical Center, Department of Public Health, PO Box 2040, 3000 CA Rotterdam, Netherlands. i.dekok@erasmusmc.nl
Joost van Rosmalen
Joakim Dillner
Marc Arbyn
Peter Sasieni
Thomas Iftner
Marjolein van Ballegooijen

Funding

Cancer Research UK C8162/A10406
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo investigate, using a Dutch model, whether and under what variables framed for other European countries screening for human papillomavirus (HPV) is preferred over cytology screening for cervical cancer, and to calculate the preferred number of examinations over a woman's lifetime.

designCost effectiveness analysis based on a Dutch simulation model. Base case analyses investigated the cost effectiveness of more than 1500 different screening policies using the microsimulation model. Subsequently, the policies were compared for five different scenarios that represent different possible scenarios (risk of cervical cancer, previous screening, quality associated test characteristics, costs of testing, and prevalence of HPV).

settingVarious European countries. POPULATION: Unvaccinated women born between 1939 and 1992.

main outcome measuresOptimal screening strategy in terms of incremental cost effectiveness ratios (costs per quality adjusted life years gained) compared with different cost effectiveness thresholds, for two levels of sensitivity and costs of the HPV test.

resultsPrimary HPV screening was the preferred primary test over the age of 30 in many considered scenarios. Primary cytology screening was preferred only in scenarios with low costs of cytology and in scenarios with a high prevalence of HPV in combination with high costs of HPV testing.

conclusionsMost European countries should consider switching from primary cytology to HPV screening for cervical cancer. HPV screening must, however, only be implemented in situations where screening is well controlled.

Indexed as

Computer SimulationModels, EconomicAlphapapillomavirusCost-Benefit AnalysisEuropeFemaleHumansNetherlandsPapillomavirus InfectionsSensitivity and SpecificityUterine Cervical NeoplasmsVaginal Smears

Identifiers

PMID22391612
PMCPMC3293782

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.