Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28530515›Full record

SynthesisJournal of medical screening2018

Cost-effectiveness of strategies to increase cervical screening uptake at first invitation (STRATEGIC).

Apostolos Tsiachristas, Matthew Gittins, Henry Kitchener, Alastair Gray

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of medical screening, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
–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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. A systematic review of the cost-effectiveness of interventions to increase cervical cancer screening among underserved women in Europe.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2024
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Cost and effects of integrated care: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2020
    Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. 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.

Apostolos Tsiachristas1 Health Economics Research Centre, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Matthew Gittins2 Centre for Biostatistics, Institute of Population Health, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Henry Kitchener3 Institute of Cancer Sciences, The University of Manchester, St. Mary's Hospital, Manchester, UK.
Alastair Gray1 Health Economics Research Centre, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.

Funding

Department of Health 09/164/01
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective To assess the cost-effectiveness of strategies to increase cervical cancer screening uptake at first invitation (STRATEGIC trial). Methods We performed an economic analysis alongside the STRATEGIC trial, comparing each of seven novel interventions for improving cervical screening uptake with control general practices in Greater Manchester and Grampian (United Kingdom). A template was developed to measure the intervention costs. Trial estimates of screening uptake were combined with data from the literature to estimate healthcare costs of each intervention. The added lifetime costs and quality adjusted life years (QALYs) of attending cervical screening were estimated by a systematic literature review, with relevant results pooled and weighted by study quality. Trial results and estimated lifetime costs and benefits of screening were then combined in a decision analytic model, giving an incremental cost per QALY gained for each intervention. Uncertainty was addressed in probabilistic and univariate sensitivity analyses. Results Intervention costs per screening round per woman attending varied from about £1.20 (2014 UK) for the nurse navigator intervention to £62 for the unrequested HPV self-sampler kit. The meta-analysis revealed a lifetime discounted benefit from screening of 0.043 QALYs per woman attending, at an additional lifetime discounted cost of £234. The incremental cost per QALY gained in all interventions was below £13,000. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses suggested that only unrequested self-sampling and timed appointments have a high probability of being cost-effective. Conclusions Unrequested self-sampling and timed appointments are likely to be cost-effective interventions. Further research is required on the duration of effects and on implementing combinations of interventions.

Indexed as

Appointments and SchedulesPatient ParticipationQuality-Adjusted Life YearsAdultCost-Benefit AnalysisEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHealth Care CostsHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicState MedicineUnited KingdomUterine Cervical Neoplasmscervical cancerCost-effectivenessscreening uptakeUnited Kingdom

Identifiers

PMID28530515
PMCPMC5956565

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.