Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29178896›Full record

ArticleBMC cancer2017

Estimating the value of point-of-care HPV testing in three low- and middle-income countries: a modeling study.

Nicole G Campos, Vivien Tsu, Jose Jeronimo, Mercy Mvundura, Jane J Kim

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC cancer, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

23 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Exploring women's preferences for HPV-based cervical cancer screening in South Africa.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2019
    Article
  19. Point of care testing for infectious diseases.Clinica chimica acta; international journal of clinical chemistry · 2019
    Review
  20. 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

5 authors.

Nicole G CamposCenter for Health Decision Science, Department of Health Policy and Management, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, 718 Huntington Avenue, 2nd Floor, Boston, Massachusetts, 02115, USA. ncampos@hsph.harvard.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0840-4339
Vivien TsuPATH, Reproductive Health Global Program, P.O. Box 900922, Seattle, Washington, USA.
Jose JeronimoGlobal Coalition against Cervical Cancer, Arlington, Virginia, USA.
Mercy MvunduraPATH, Devices and Tools Program, P.O. Box 90922, Seattle, Washington, USA.
Jane J KimCenter for Health Decision Science, Department of Health Policy and Management, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, 718 Huntington Avenue, 2nd Floor, Boston, Massachusetts, 02115, USA.

Funding

Gates Foundation Cervical Cancer Prevention Project
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWhere resources are available, the World Health Organization recommends cervical cancer screening with human papillomavirus (HPV) DNA testing and subsequent treatment of HPV-positive women with timely cryotherapy. Newer technologies may facilitate a same-day screen-and-treat approach, but these testing systems are generally too expensive for widespread use in low-resource settings.

methodsTo assess the value of a hypothetical point-of-care HPV test, we used a mathematical simulation model of the natural history of HPV and data from the START-UP multi-site demonstration project to estimate the health benefits and costs associated with a shift from a 2-visit approach (requiring a return visit for treatment) to 1-visit HPV testing (i.e., screen-and-treat). We estimated the incremental net monetary benefit (INMB), which represents the maximum additional lifetime cost per woman that could be incurred for a new point-of-care HPV test to be cost-effective, depending on expected loss to follow-up between visits (LTFU) in a given setting.

resultsFor screening three times in a lifetime at 100% coverage of the target population, when LTFU was 10%, the INMB of the 1-visit relative to the 2-visit approach was I$13 in India, I$36 in Nicaragua, and I$17 in Uganda. If LTFU was 30% or greater, the INMB values for the 1-visit approach in all countries was equivalent to or exceeded total lifetime costs associated with screening three times in a lifetime. At a LTFU level of 70%, the INMB of the 1-visit approach was I$127 in India, I$399 in Nicaragua, and I$121 in Uganda.

conclusionsThese findings indicate that point-of-care technology for cervical cancer screening may be worthy of high investment if linkage to treatment can be assured, particularly in settings where LTFU is high.

Indexed as

Models, TheoreticalPoint-of-Care TestingComputer SimulationCost-Benefit AnalysisDeveloping CountriesEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHealth ResourcesHumansMass ScreeningMonte Carlo MethodPapillomavirus InfectionsSocioeconomic FactorsUterine Cervical NeoplasmsCancer screeningCost-effectiveness analysisDecision analysisHPV DNA testsHuman papillomavirus (HPV)Uterine cervical neoplasms

Identifiers

PMID29178896
PMCPMC5702206

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.