Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27023044›Full record

ArticleJournal of women's health (2002)2016

The Clinical and Economic Benefits of Co-Testing Versus Primary HPV Testing for Cervical Cancer Screening: A Modeling Analysis.

Juan C Felix, Michael J Lacey, Jeffrey D Miller, Gregory M Lenhart, Mark Spitzer, Rucha Kulkarni

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of women's health (2002), 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.3field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 44 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Cotesting in Cervical Cancer Screening.American journal of clinical pathology · 2021
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. PCR-RFLP assay as an option for primary HPV test.Brazilian journal of medical and biological research = Revista brasileira de pesquisas medicas e biologica · 2018
    Article
  15. Article
  16. 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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Juan C Felix1 Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California , Los Angeles, California.
Michael J Lacey2 Truven Health Analytics , Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Jeffrey D Miller2 Truven Health Analytics , Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Gregory M Lenhart2 Truven Health Analytics , Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Mark Spitzer3 Hofstra North Shore-LIJ School of Medicine , Hempstead, New York.
Rucha Kulkarni2 Truven Health Analytics , Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Truven Health Analytics (United States) · USHofstra University · USUniversity of Southern California · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundConsensus United States cervical cancer screening guidelines recommend use of combination Pap plus human papillomavirus (HPV) testing for women aged 30 to 65 years. An HPV test was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2014 for primary cervical cancer screening in women age 25 years and older. Here, we present the results of clinical-economic comparisons of Pap plus HPV mRNA testing including genotyping for HPV 16/18 (co-testing) versus DNA-based primary HPV testing with HPV 16/18 genotyping and reflex cytology (HPV primary) for cervical cancer screening.

methodsA health state transition (Markov) model with 1-year cycling was developed using epidemiologic, clinical, and economic data from healthcare databases and published literature. A hypothetical cohort of one million women receiving triennial cervical cancer screening was simulated from ages 30 to 70 years. Screening strategies compared HPV primary to co-testing. Outcomes included total and incremental differences in costs, invasive cervical cancer (ICC) cases, ICC deaths, number of colposcopies, and quality-adjusted life years for cost-effectiveness calculations. Comprehensive sensitivity analyses were performed.

resultsIn a simulation cohort of one million 30-year-old women modeled up to age 70 years, the model predicted that screening with HPV primary testing instead of co-testing could lead to as many as 2,141 more ICC cases and 2,041 more ICC deaths. In the simulation, co-testing demonstrated a greater number of lifetime quality-adjusted life years (22,334) and yielded $39.0 million in savings compared with HPV primary, thereby conferring greater effectiveness at lower cost.

conclusionsModel results demonstrate that co-testing has the potential to provide improved clinical and economic outcomes when compared with HPV primary. While actual cost and outcome data are evaluated, these findings are relevant to U.S. healthcare payers and women's health policy advocates seeking cost-effective cervical cancer screening technologies.

Indexed as

Cost-Benefit AnalysisAdultAgedColposcopyComputer SimulationDNA, ViralEarly Detection of CancerFemaleGenotypeHuman papillomavirus 16Human papillomavirus 18HumansLogistic ModelsMarkov ChainsMass ScreeningMiddle AgedDNA, Viral

Identifiers

PMID27023044
PMCPMC4900245
OpenAlexW2313227279

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.