Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25924871›Full record

SynthesisBMC cancer2015

Systematic review of model-based cervical screening evaluations.

Diana Mendes, Iren Bains, Tazio Vanni, Mark Jit

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC cancer, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed, 6 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

30 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Atencion primaria · 2018
    Guideline
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Review
  9. Modeling the Impact of Multicancer Early Detection Tests: A Review of Natural History of Disease Models.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2025
    Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  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

4 authors.

Diana MendesDepartment of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, Faculty of Epidemiology and Population Health, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, Keppel Street, Bloomsbury, London, WC1E 7HT, UK. diana.mendes@lshtm.ac.uk.
Iren BainsModelling and Economics Unit, Public Health England, 61 Colindale Avenue, London, NW9 5EQ, UK. iren.bains@phe.gov.uk.
Tazio VanniBrazilian Ministry of Health, Esplanada dos Ministérios Bloco G, Brasília-DF, CEP: 70058-900, Brasil. tazio.vanni@saude.gov.br.
Mark JitDepartment of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, Faculty of Epidemiology and Population Health, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, Keppel Street, Bloomsbury, London, WC1E 7HT, UK. mark.jit@phe.gov.uk.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundOptimising population-based cervical screening policies is becoming more complex due to the expanding range of screening technologies available and the interplay with vaccine-induced changes in epidemiology. Mathematical models are increasingly being applied to assess the impact of cervical cancer screening strategies.

methodsWe systematically reviewed MEDLINE®, Embase, Web of Science®, EconLit, Health Economic Evaluation Database, and The Cochrane Library databases in order to identify the mathematical models of human papillomavirus (HPV) infection and cervical cancer progression used to assess the effectiveness and/or cost-effectiveness of cervical cancer screening strategies. Key model features and conclusions relevant to decision-making were extracted.

resultsWe found 153 articles meeting our eligibility criteria published up to May 2013. Most studies (72/153) evaluated the introduction of a new screening technology, with particular focus on the comparison of HPV DNA testing and cytology (n = 58). Twenty-eight in forty of these analyses supported HPV DNA primary screening implementation. A few studies analysed more recent technologies - rapid HPV DNA testing (n = 3), HPV DNA self-sampling (n = 4), and genotyping (n = 1) - and were also supportive of their introduction. However, no study was found on emerging molecular markers and their potential utility in future screening programmes. Most evaluations (113/153) were based on models simulating aggregate groups of women at risk of cervical cancer over time without accounting for HPV infection transmission. Calibration to country-specific outcome data is becoming more common, but has not yet become standard practice.

conclusionsModels of cervical screening are increasingly used, and allow extrapolation of trial data to project the population-level health and economic impact of different screening policy. However, post-vaccination analyses have rarely incorporated transmission dynamics. Model calibration to country-specific data is increasingly common in recent studies.

Indexed as

Cost-Benefit AnalysisEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHumansUterine Cervical Neoplasms

Identifiers

PMID25924871
PMCPMC4419493

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.