Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24885048›Full record

ArticleBMC cancer2014

Modeling optimal cervical cancer prevention strategies in Nigeria.

Nadia Demarteau, Imran O Morhason-Bello, Babatunde Akinwunmi, Isaac F Adewole

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC cancer, 2014. 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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
2.1field-weighted citation impact, top 13% 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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 30 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Awareness, Knowledge and Attitudes Towards Cervical Cancer Amongst HIV-Positive Women Receiving Care in a Tertiary Hospital in Nigeria.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2018
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. 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

4 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Nadia DemarteauHealth Economics, Global Vaccines Development, GlaxoSmithKline Vaccines, Avenue Fleming 20 B-1300, Wavre, Belgium. nadia.x.demarteau@gsk.com.
Imran O Morhason-Bello
Babatunde Akinwunmi
Isaac F Adewole
University of Ibadan · NGGlaxoSmithKline (United Kingdom) · GBUniversity College Hospital, Ibadan · NG

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThis study aims to assess the most efficient combinations of vaccination and screening coverage for the prevention of cervical cancer (CC) at different levels of expenditure in Nigeria.

methodsAn optimization procedure, using a linear programming approach and requiring the use of two models (an evaluation and an optimization model), was developed. The evaluation model, a Markov model, estimated the annual number of CC cases at steady state in a population of 100,000 women for four alternative strategies: screening only; vaccination only; screening and vaccination; and no prevention. The results of the Markov model for each scenario were used as inputs to the optimization model determining the optimal proportion of the population to receive screening and/or vaccination under different scenarios. The scenarios varied by available budget, maximum screening and vaccination coverage, and overall reachable population.

resultsIn the base-case optimization model analyses, with a coverage constraint of 20% for one lifetime screening, 95% for vaccination and a budget constraint of $1 per woman per year to minimize CC incidence, the optimal mix of prevention strategies would result in a reduction of CC incidence of 31% (3-dose vaccination available) or 46% (2-dose vaccination available) compared with CC incidence pre-vaccination. With a 3-dose vaccination schedule, the optimal combination of the different strategies across the population would be 20% screening alone, 39% vaccination alone and 41% with no prevention, while with a 2-dose vaccination schedule the optimal combination would be 71% vaccination alone, and 29% with no prevention. Sensitivity analyses indicated that the results are sensitive to the constraints included in the optimization model as well as the cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) and CC treatment cost.

conclusionsThe results of the optimization model indicate that, in Nigeria, the most efficient allocation of a limited budget would be to invest in both vaccination and screening with a 3-dose vaccination schedule, and in vaccination alone before implementing a screening program with a 2-dose vaccination schedule.

Indexed as

Cost-Benefit AnalysisModels, TheoreticalFemaleHumansMarkov ChainsNigeriaPapillomaviridaePapillomavirus VaccinesUterine Cervical NeoplasmsPapillomavirus Vaccines

Identifiers

PMID24885048
PMCPMC4057561
OpenAlexW2080621463

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.