ArticleExpert review of pharmacoeconomics & outcomes research2015
Long-term costs of introducing HPV-DNA post-treatment surveillance to national cervical cancer screening in Ireland.
Article in Expert review of pharmacoeconomics & outcomes research, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionCo-testing (cytology plus human papillomavirus DNA testing) as part of cervical cancer surveillance in Ireland increases one-time testing costs. Of interest to policy makers was the long-term impact of these costs accompanied by decreases in intensity of recalls for women with no detected abnormalities.
methodsA cost analysis of cytology-only and co-testing strategy was implemented using decision analytic modeling, aggregating testing utilization and costs for each of the two strategies over 12 years.
resultsAggregated incremental costs of the co-testing strategy were positive for the first 3 years but became negative thereafter, generating a cost savings of roughly €20 million in favor of the cytology-only strategy over a 12-year period. Results were robust over a range of sensitivity analyses with respect to discount and attrition rates. DISCUSSION: This analysis provided valuable information to policy makers contributing to the introduction of co-testing for post-treatment surveillance (PTS) in Ireland.
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.