Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26545585›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2015

Cost-effectiveness of using the Cervex-Brush (broom) compared to the elongated spatula for collection of conventional cervical cytology samples within a high-burden HIV setting: a model-based analysis.

Kathryn Schnippel, Pamela Michelow, Carla J Chibwesha, Caroline Makura, Naomi Lince-Deroche, Bridgette Goeieman, Masangu Mulongo, Suzette Jordaan, Cynthia Firnhaber

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 24% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. A two-step quality-improvement intervention to address Pap smear quality at public health facilities in South Africa.South African medical journal = Suid-Afrikaanse tydskrif vir geneeskunde · 2018
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Observational
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

9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Kathryn SchnippelRight to Care, Johannesburg, South Africa. kschnipp@gmail.com.
Pamela MichelowCytology Unit, Department of Anatomical Pathology, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa. Pamela.Michelow@nhls.ac.za.
Carla J ChibweshaRight to Care, Johannesburg, South Africa. Carla_Chibwesha@med.unc.edu.
Caroline MakuraRight to Care, Johannesburg, South Africa. caroline.makura@righttocare.org.
Naomi Lince-DerocheHealth Economics and Epidemiology Research Office, Department of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa. nlince-deroche@heroza.org.
Bridgette GoeiemanRight to Care, Johannesburg, South Africa. Bridgette.Goeieman@righttocare.org.
Masangu MulongoRight to Care, Johannesburg, South Africa. Masangu.Mulongo@righttocare.org.
Suzette JordaanCytology Unit, Department of Anatomical Pathology, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa. suzette.jordaan@nhls.ac.za.
Cynthia FirnhaberRight to Care, Johannesburg, South Africa. cindy.firnhaber@righttocare.org.
Right to Care · ZAUniversity of the Witwatersrand · ZA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundFrom 2010 to 2014, approximately 2 million Pap smears from HIV-infected women were submitted to the South African National Health Laboratory Services (NHLS) through the national cervical cancer screening programme. The objective of this analysis was to determine whether using the plastic Cervex brush ("broom") would be a cost-effective approach to improve cytology specimen quality as compared to the wooden spatula used currently.

methodsA decision analysis model was built using the expected adequacy rates for samples collected with the spatula (<$0.02) and broom ($0.23) and the probability of detecting cervical dysplasia. NHLS data was used for testing volumes and rates of HIV-positivity, suitability of specimens, and presence of endocervical cells. Expected positivity of Pap smears in HIV-infected women (73 %), odds ratios of the effectiveness of the broom (OR: 1.57), and improved sensitivity when endocervical cells present (OR: 1.89) are from literature. NHLS costs were used for the collection devices and conventional cytology ($4.89). Cost of clinic visit is from WHO CHOICE ($8.36).

resultsIn 2010, 80 % of specimens submitted to NHLS were adequate for evaluation; in 2014, only 54 % met the same criteria. For HIV-infected women, according to the guidelines model, using the wooden spatula costs $6.25 million per year, $16.79 per woman tested. Under intended practice, for each additional HSIL case detected among HIV-infected women, the South African cervical cancer screening programme could save $13.64 (95 % CI: $13.52 to $13.76) by using the broom as its standard of care collection device through increased collection of endocervical cells and consequent reduction in repeat Pap smears.

conclusionUnder a wide range of parameters tested using a simulation model, the more expensive plastic broom could save the South African cervical cancer screening programme money and increase detection of high-grade cervical dysplasia in HIV-infected women compared to the current wooden spatula.

Indexed as

Cost-Benefit AnalysisHIV InfectionsCytisusFemaleHumansLaboratoriesPapanicolaou TestSouth AfricaSpecimen HandlingSurgical InstrumentsUterine Cervical NeoplasmsVaginal Smears

Identifiers

PMID26545585
PMCPMC4636771
OpenAlexW2096269387

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.