Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29684144›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of public health2018

Moving towards an organized cervical cancer screening: costs and impact.

Mireia Diaz, David Moriña, Vanesa Rodríguez-Salés, Raquel Ibáñez, Josep Alfons Espinás, Silvia de Sanjosé

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of public health, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

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

  1. 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
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Cervical Cancer Screening with HPV Testing: Updates on the Recommendation.Revista brasileira de ginecologia e obstetricia : revista da Federacao Brasileira das Sociedades de Ginecologia e Obstetricia · 2022
    Article
  6. 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

6 authors.

Mireia DiazUnit of Infections and Cancer (UNIC-I&I), Cancer Epidemiology Research Programme (CERP), Institut Català d'Oncologia (ICO)-IDIBELL, L'Hospitalet de Llobregat, Barcelona, Spain.
David MoriñaUnit of Infections and Cancer (UNIC-I&I), Cancer Epidemiology Research Programme (CERP), Institut Català d'Oncologia (ICO)-IDIBELL, L'Hospitalet de Llobregat, Barcelona, Spain.
Vanesa Rodríguez-SalésUnit of Infections and Cancer (UNIC-I&I), Cancer Epidemiology Research Programme (CERP), Institut Català d'Oncologia (ICO)-IDIBELL, L'Hospitalet de Llobregat, Barcelona, Spain.
Raquel IbáñezUnit of Infections and Cancer (UNIC-I&I), Cancer Epidemiology Research Programme (CERP), Institut Català d'Oncologia (ICO)-IDIBELL, L'Hospitalet de Llobregat, Barcelona, Spain.
Josep Alfons EspinásDepartment of Health, Generalitat de Catalunya, Catalan Cancer Strategy, Barcelona, Spain.
Silvia de SanjoséCIBERESP, Barcelona, Spain.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: HPV screening has been shown to be more cost-effective than cytology screening under most scenarios. Furthermore, it should be offered only in organized programmes with good quality assurance mechanisms. This study analyses the comparative cost of the current policy of opportunistic cytology screening vs. a hypothetical organized programme based on primary HPV screening. Methods: Total cervical cancer expenditure was defined as the sum of three cost elements: (i) direct (medical and non-medical) costs, obtained from a calibrated Markov model of the natural history of HPV and cervical cancer; (ii) programmatic costs, estimated based on other organized screening programmes; and (iii) indirect costs, extrapolated from previously published data. Results: Organized HPV screening at 5-year intervals costs consistently less across all coverage levels than opportunistic cytology screening at 3-year intervals. The current annual direct medical cost to the public health system of the opportunistic cytology at 40% coverage is estimated at €33.2 per woman screened aged 25-64. Under an organized programme of primary HPV screening at 70% coverage, the cost is estimated to be €18.4 per woman screened aged 25-64. Conclusion: Our study concludes that the economic resources currently devoted to providing opportunistic cytology screening to 40% of the target population at 3-year intervals could be more effectively used to screen 70% of the target population at 5-year intervals by switching to an organized programme based on primary HPV screening. This finding is of relevance to other European countries or regions with similar screening policies and health infrastructures.

Indexed as

Cost-Benefit AnalysisAdultEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHealth Care CostsHumansMarkov ChainsMass ScreeningMiddle AgedPapillomavirus InfectionsPrimary Health CareSpainUterine Cervical Neoplasms

Identifiers

PMID29684144
PMCPMC6241209

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.