Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25943074›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of cancer2015

Cervical cancer screening in low-resource settings: A cost-effectiveness framework for valuing tradeoffs between test performance and program coverage.

Nicole G Campos, Philip E Castle, Thomas C Wright, Jane J Kim

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of cancer, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
36citing 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

36 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. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  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

4 authors.

Nicole G CamposDepartment of Health Policy and Management, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Center for Health Decision Science, Boston, MA.
Philip E CastleGlobal Coalition against Cervical Cancer, Arlington, VA.
Thomas C WrightDepartment of Pathology and Cell Biology, Columbia University Medical Center, NY.
Jane J KimDepartment of Health Policy and Management, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Center for Health Decision Science, Boston, MA.

Funding

Comparative and Cost-Effectiveness of Preventing HPV-Related DiseasesR01CA160744 · NCI · HARVARD SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH · PI KIM, JANE JOOYUN · 2012 to 2015
$1.2M
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA160744NCI NIH HHS R01CA160744
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

As cervical cancer screening programs are implemented in low-resource settings, protocols are needed to maximize health benefits under operational constraints. Our objective was to develop a framework for examining health and economic tradeoffs between screening test sensitivity, population coverage and follow-up of screen-positive women, to help decision makers identify where program investments yield the greatest value. As an illustrative example, we used an individual-based Monte Carlo simulation model of the natural history of human papillomavirus (HPV) and cervical cancer calibrated to epidemiologic data from Uganda. We assumed once in a lifetime screening at age 35 with two-visit HPV DNA testing or one-visit visual inspection with acetic acid (VIA). We assessed the health and economic tradeoffs that arise between (i) test sensitivity and screening coverage; (ii) test sensitivity and loss to follow-up (LTFU) of screen-positive women; and (iii) test sensitivity, screening coverage and LTFU simultaneously. The decline in health benefits associated with sacrificing HPV DNA test sensitivity by 20% (e.g., shifting from provider- to self-collection of specimens) could be offset by gains in coverage if coverage increased by at least 20%. When LTFU was 10%, two-visit HPV DNA testing with 80-90% sensitivity was more effective and more cost-effective than one-visit VIA with 40% sensitivity and yielded greater health benefits than VIA even as VIA sensitivity increased to 60% and HPV test sensitivity declined to 70%. As LTFU increased, two-visit HPV DNA testing became more costly and less effective than one-visit VIA. Setting-specific data on achievable test sensitivity, coverage, follow-up rates and programmatic costs are needed to guide decision making for cervical cancer screening.

Indexed as

AlphapapillomavirusDNA, ViralEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHumansIncidenceMass ScreeningMolecular Diagnostic TechniquesPapillomavirus InfectionsSensitivity and SpecificityUterine Cervical NeoplasmsDNA, Viralcancer screeningdecision analysisHPV DNA testshuman papillomavirusuterine cervical neoplasms

Identifiers

PMID25943074
PMCPMC4910518

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.