ArticleBritish journal of cancer2015
Economic evaluation of DNA ploidy analysis vs liquid-based cytology for cervical screening.
Article in British journal of cancer, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Simple but not simpler: a systematic review of Markov models for economic evaluation of cervical cancer screening.Clinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil) · 2018Pooled it
- The Application of Liquid-Based Cytological Detection for P16, Cytologic Evaluation and High-Risk Human Papillomavirus Testing in Cervical Cancer Screening: A Clinical Evaluation.International journal of women's health · 2022Article
- The Value of DNA Quantitative Cytology Test for the Screening of Endometrial Cancer.Cancer management and research · 2019Article
- Value of automatic DNA image cytometry for diagnosing lung cancer.Oncology letters · 2018Article
- Overtreatment and Cost-Effectiveness of the See-and-Treat Strategy for Managing Cervical Precancer.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundDNA ploidy analysis involves automated quantification of chromosomal aneuploidy, a potential marker of progression toward cervical carcinoma. We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of this method for cervical screening, comparing five ploidy strategies (using different numbers of aneuploid cells as cut points) with liquid-based Papanicolaou smear and no screening.
methodsA state-transition Markov model simulated the natural history of HPV infection and possible progression into cervical neoplasia in a cohort of 12-year-old females. The analysis evaluated cost in 2012 US$ and effectiveness in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) from a health-system perspective throughout a lifetime horizon in the US setting. We calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) to determine the best strategy. The robustness of optimal choices was examined in deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.
resultsIn the base-case analysis, the ploidy 4 cell strategy was cost-effective, yielding an increase of 0.032 QALY and an ICER of $18 264/QALY compared to no screening. For most scenarios in the deterministic sensitivity analysis, the ploidy 4 cell strategy was the only cost-effective strategy. Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves showed that this strategy was more likely to be cost-effective than the Papanicolaou smear.
conclusionCompared to the liquid-based Papanicolaou smear, screening with a DNA ploidy strategy appeared less costly and comparably effective.
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.