Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29895648›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2018

Community-based HPV self-collection versus visual inspection with acetic acid in Uganda: a cost-effectiveness analysis of the ASPIRE trial.

Alex K Mezei, Heather N Pedersen, Stephen Sy, Catherine Regan, Sheona M Mitchell-Foster, Josaphat Byamugisha, Musa Sekikubo, Heather Armstrong, Angeli Rawat, Joel Singer and 3 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 41 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
41citing papers in PubMed, 7 pooled it
3.1field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
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

41 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 57 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Guideline
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  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

13 authors at 4 institutions in 4 countries.

Alex K MezeiFaculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-2285-8599
Heather N PedersenWomen's Health Research Institute, British Columbia Women's Hospital and Health Centre, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Stephen SyDepartment of Health Policy and Management, Center for Health Decision Science, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Catherine ReganDepartment of Health Policy and Management, Center for Health Decision Science, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Sheona M Mitchell-FosterDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Josaphat ByamugishaDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Makerere University, Kampala, Uganda.
Musa SekikuboDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Makerere University, Kampala, Uganda.
Heather ArmstrongFaculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Angeli RawatWomen's Health Research Institute, British Columbia Women's Hospital and Health Centre, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Joel SingerSchool of Population and Public Health, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Gina S OgilvieWomen's Health Research Institute, British Columbia Women's Hospital and Health Centre, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Jane J KimDepartment of Health Policy and Management, Center for Health Decision Science, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Nicole G CamposDepartment of Health Policy and Management, Center for Health Decision Science, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-0840-4339
Harvard University · USUniversity of British Columbia · CAWomen's Health Research Institute · CAMulago Hospital · UG

Funding

CIHR FDN-143339
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCervical cancer is the leading cause of cancer death for women in Uganda, despite the potential for prevention through organised screening. Community-based self-collected human papillomavirus (HPV) testing has been proposed to reduce barriers to screening.

objectiveOur objective was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the Advances in Screening and Prevention of Reproductive Cancers (ASPIRE) trial, conducted in Kisenyi, Uganda in April 2014 (n=500). The trial compared screening uptake and compliance with follow-up in two arms: (1) community-based (ie, home or workplace) self-collected HPV testing (facilitated by community health workers) with clinic-based visual inspection with acetic acid (VIA) triage of HPV-positive women ('HPV-VIA') and (2) clinic-based VIA ('VIA'). In both arms, VIA was performed at the local health unit by midwives with VIA-positive women receiving immediate treatment with cryotherapy.

designWe informed a Monte Carlo simulation model of HPV infection and cervical cancer with screening uptake, compliance and retrospective cost data from the ASPIRE trial; additional cost, test performance and treatment effectiveness data were drawn from observational studies. The model was used to assess the cost-effectiveness of each arm of ASPIRE, as well as an HPV screen-and-treat strategy ('HPV-ST') involving community-based self-collected HPV testing followed by treatment for all HPV-positive women at the clinic. OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcomes were reductions in cervical cancer risk and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), expressed in dollars per year of life saved (YLS).

resultsHPV-ST was the most effective and cost-effective screening strategy, reducing the lifetime absolute risk of cervical cancer from 4.2% (range: 3.8%-4.7%) to 3.5% (range: 3.2%-4%), 2.8% (range: 2.4%-3.1%) and 2.4% (range: 2.1%-2.7%) with ICERs of US$130 (US$110-US$150) per YLS, US$240 (US$210-US$280) per YLS, and US$470 (US$410-US$550) per YLS when performed one, three and five times per lifetime, respectively. Findings were robust across sensitivity analyses, unless HPV costs were more than quadrupled.

conclusionsCommunity-based self-collected HPV testing followed by treatment for HPV-positive women has the potential to be an effective and cost-effective screening strategy.

Indexed as

Cost-Benefit AnalysisAdultColposcopyCryosurgeryEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHuman Papillomavirus DNA TestsHumansMass ScreeningMiddle AgedMonte Carlo MethodPhysical ExaminationRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicRetrospective StudiesSpecimen HandlingUgandacervical cancercost-effectivenessscreeningself-collected HPV testingUganda

Identifiers

PMID29895648
PMCPMC6009460
OpenAlexW2808535157

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.