ArticlePreventive medicine2018
Inefficiencies of over-screening and under-screening for cervical cancer prevention in the U.S.
Article in Preventive medicine, 2018. 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, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Prevention Strategies and Early Diagnosis of Cervical Cancer: Current State and Prospects.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Article
- Effect of introducing human papillomavirus genotyping into real-world screening on cervical cancer screening in China: a retrospective population-based cohort study.Therapeutic advances in medical oncology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
There is limited information on the cost-inefficiencies of non-adherence to recommended cervical cancer screening or the potential value for improving non-adherence. We estimated the incremental value of adhering to recommended screening every three years with cytology, using a disease simulation model that integrated real-world screening practice data from New Mexico. The amount that can be spent to improve adherence was estimated by calculating the incremental net monetary benefit (INMB) under scenarios of Current Practice (assuming a population of mixed adherence) and Uniformly Non-Adherent populations with imperfect or perfect adherence to follow-up of screen-positive women. Getting unscreened women screened every three years by cytology was a better value than increasing screening in the under-screened or reducing screening in the over-screened. For example, INMBs were $3998 for screening previously unscreened women versus $136 for eliminating annual screening at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained. Strategies to reach unscreened women are potentially high-value investments.
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.