ArticleBritish journal of cancer2017
Choosing wisely: a model-based analysis evaluating the trade-offs in cancer benefit and diagnostic referrals among alternative HPV testing strategies in Norway.
Article in British journal of cancer, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cost-effectiveness of cervical cancer screening with primary HPV testing for unvaccinated women in Sweden.PloS one · 2020Article
- Article
- Choosing wisely in oncology: necessity and obstacles.ESMO open · 2018Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundForthcoming cervical cancer screening strategies involving human papillomavirus (HPV) testing for women not vaccinated against HPV infections may increase colposcopy referral rates. We quantified health and resource trade-offs associated with alternative HPV-based algorithms to inform decision-makers when choosing between candidate algorithms.
methodsWe used a mathematical simulation model of HPV-induced cervical carcinogenesis in Norway. We compared the current cytology-based strategy to alternative strategies that varied by the switching age to primary HPV testing (ages 25-34 years), the routine screening frequency (every 3-10 years), and management of HPV-positive, cytology-negative women. Model outcomes included reductions in lifetime cervical cancer risk, relative colposcopy rates, and colposcopy rates per cervical cancer prevented.
resultsThe age of switching to primary HPV testing and the screening frequency had the largest impacts on cancer risk reductions, which ranged from 90.9% to 96.3% compared to no screening. In contrast, increasing the follow-up intensity of HPV-positive, cytology-negative women provided only minor improvements in cancer benefits, but generally required considerably higher rates of colposcopy referrals compared to current levels, resulting in less efficient cervical cancer prevention.
conclusionsWe found that in order to maximise cancer benefits HPV-based screening among unvaccinated women should not be delayed: rather, policy makers should utilise the triage mechanism to control colposcopy referrals.
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.