Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26970740›Full record

ArticleCancer causes & control : CCC2016

The potential harms of primary human papillomavirus screening in over-screened women: a microsimulation study.

Steffie K Naber, Inge M C M de Kok, Suzette M Matthijsse, Marjolein van Ballegooijen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cancer causes & control : CCC, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Observational
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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.

Steffie K NaberDepartment of Public Health, Erasmus Medical Center, P.O. Box 2040, 3000 CA, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. s.naber@erasmusmc.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8357-1738
Inge M C M de KokDepartment of Public Health, Erasmus Medical Center, P.O. Box 2040, 3000 CA, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Suzette M MatthijsseDepartment of Public Health, Erasmus Medical Center, P.O. Box 2040, 3000 CA, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Marjolein van BallegooijenDepartment of Public Health, Erasmus Medical Center, P.O. Box 2040, 3000 CA, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIt is well acknowledged that HPV testing should not be performed at young age and at short intervals. Cytological screening practices have shown that over-screening, i.e., from a younger age and at shorter intervals than recommended, is hard to avoid. We quantified the consequences of a switch to primary HPV screening for over-screened women, taking into account its higher sensitivity but lower specificity than cytology.

methodsThe health effects of using the HPV test instead of cytology as the primary screening method were determined with the MISCAN-Cervix model. We varied the age women start screening and the interval between screens. In the sensitivity analyses, we varied the background risk of cervical cancer, the HPV prevalence, the discount rate, the triage strategy after cytology, and the test characteristics of both cytology and the HPV test.

resultsFor women screened 5 yearly from age 30, 32 extra deaths per 100,000 simulated women were prevented when switching from primary cytology to primary HPV testing. For annual screening from age 20, such a switch resulted in 6 extra deaths prevented. It was associated with 9,044 more positive primary screens in the former scenario versus 76,480 in the latter. Under all conditions, for women screened annually, switching to HPV screening resulted in a net loss of quality-adjusted life years.

conclusionFor over-screened women, the harms associated with a lower test specificity outweigh the life years gained when switching from primary cytology to primary HPV testing. The extent of over-screening should be considered when deciding on inclusion of primary HPV screening in cervical cancer screening guidelines.

Indexed as

AdultCytodiagnosisEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHumansMass ScreeningPapillomavirus InfectionsQuality-Adjusted Life YearsSensitivity and SpecificityUterine Cervical NeoplasmsYoung AdultComputer simulationEarly detection of cancerHuman papillomavirus DNA testsPapanicolaou testUterine cervical neoplasms

Identifiers

PMID26970740
PMCPMC4796367

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.