ReviewReports of practical oncology and radiotherapy : journal of Greatpoland Cancer Center in Poznan and Polish Society of Radiation Oncology
Present challenges in cervical cancer prevention: Answers from cost-effectiveness analyses.
Review in Reports of practical oncology and radiotherapy : journal of Greatpoland Cancer Center in Poznan and Polish Society of Radiation Oncology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Human Papilloma Virus Vaccination and Cervical Screening in the Italian Regions: An Overview of the Current State of the Art.Vaccines · 2024Article
- Cervical cancer management in Zimbabwe (2019-2020).PloS one · 2022Article
- Knowledge, attitude and practice towards cervical cancer prevention among mothers of girls aged between 9 and 14 years: a cross sectional survey in Zimbabwe.BMC women's health · 2021Article
- New developments and controversies in cervical cancer.Reports of practical oncology and radiotherapy : journal of Greatpoland Cancer Center in Poznan and Polish Society of Radiation OncologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Simulation models are commonly used to address important health policy issues that cannot be explored through experimental studies. These models are especially useful to determine a set of strategies that result in a good value for money (cost-effectiveness). Several mathematical models simulating the natural history of HPV and related diseases, especially cervical cancer, have been developed to calculate a relative effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of HPV vaccination and cervical cancer screening interventions. Virtually all cost-effectiveness analyses identify HPV vaccination programmes for preadolescent girls to be cost-effective, even for relatively low vaccination coverage rates. Routine vaccination of preadolescent girls is the primary target population for HPV vaccination as it shows to provide the greatest health impact. Cost-effectiveness analyses assessing other vaccine target groups are less conclusive. Adding additional age-cohorts would accelerate health benefits in some years, although cost-effectiveness becomes less favourable as age at vaccination increases. Including men in HPV vaccination programmes may be a less efficient strategy if done at the expense of female vaccination coverage for reducing the burden of HPV in the population. However, as the HPV vaccine price decreases, the cost-effectiveness of universal vaccination improves, becoming equally as efficient as female-only vaccination. Vaccine price is a decisive factor in the cost-effectiveness analyses. The lower the price, the greater the likelihood that vaccination groups other than the primary target would be considered cost-effective.
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.