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.
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.
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
16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 44 citations in OpenAlex.
- A systematic review of economic evaluations of cervical cancer screening methods.Systematic reviews · 2022Pooled it
- Hospital spending for cancers in Hunan, China during 2017 and 2019.BMC public health · 2025Article
- Cervical cancer screening by cotesting method for Vietnamese women 25-55 years old: a cost-effectiveness analysis.BMJ open · 2025Article
- Exploring the Intricacies of Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia and Its Connection with HPV: A Narrative Review.Iranian journal of public health · 2024Review
- Prevalence of Human Papillomavirus (HPV) Infection and its Association With Pap Smear Findings Among Women Attending a Gynecology Clinic in Khorasan Razavi-Iran.Journal of research in health sciences · 2024Article
- Understanding the Dynamics of Human Papillomavirus and Diagnostic Discrepancies in Cervical Pathology: A Single Center Experience.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Exploration of biomarkers for the diagnosis, treatment and prognosis of cervical cancer: a review.Discover oncology · 2022Review
- Comparative cost analysis of cervical cancer screening programme based on molecular detection of HPV in Spain.BMC women's health · 2021Article
- Cotesting in Cervical Cancer Screening.American journal of clinical pathology · 2021Article
- Call for Systematic Population-Based Cervical Cancer Screening: Findings from Community-Based Screening Camps in Tamil Nadu, India.Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP · 2019Article
- Forgone Health and Economic Benefits Associated with Socioeconomic Differences in Organized Cervical Cancer Screening.Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP · 2019Article
- Direct costs of both inpatient and outpatient care for all type cancers: The evidence from Beijing, China.Cancer medicine · 2019Article
- Relative Performance of HPV and Cytology Components of Cotesting in Cervical Screening.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2018Article
- PCR-RFLP assay as an option for primary HPV test.Brazilian journal of medical and biological research = Revista brasileira de pesquisas medicas e biologica · 2018Article
- Why does cervical cancer occur in a state-of-the-art screening program?Gynecologic oncology · 2017Article
- The Value Proposition for Pathologists: A Population Health Approach.Academic pathologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.