ArticlePloS one2019
Development and application of a framework to estimate health care costs in China: The cervical cancer example.
Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Modelling the epidemic dynamics of HPV among women in China and optimization of ongoing cervical cancer elimination strategies.BMC medicine · 2026Article
- Give birth in rural hometowns or urban areas? Place of delivery among rural migrant working mothers in the Pearl river delta, China.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2025Article
- A novel nomogram and risk stratification for early metastasis in cervical cancer after radical radiotherapy.Cancer medicine · 2023Article
- Epidemiological/Disease and Economic Burdens of Cervical Cancer in 2010-2014: Are Younger Women at Risk?Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- The Lifetime Cost Estimation of Human Papillomavirus-related Diseases in China: A Modeling Study.Journal of translational internal medicine · 2021Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesInformation on healthcare costs in low-and-middle-income countries is limited. This study presents a framework to perform healthcare cost estimates for each province in China.
methodsThis study has two aims. Using cervical cancer as an example, the first aim is to use data (including micro-costing data) from one province to derive estimates for other provinces in China. This used provincial and national Chinese-language statistical reports and considered levels of service delivery, hospital-seeking behaviour, and the urban/rural population distribution. The second aim is to characterise the relationship between the reference costs estimated using the method mentioned above and two sets of cost estimates derived using simplified cost-scaling method with per capita Gross Domestic Product (GDP), and the Human Development Index (HDI). For simplified methods, regression modelling characterised the relationship between province-specific healthcare costs and macro-economic indicators, then we used the exponential fit to extrapolate costs.
resultsUsing the reference method, the estimated costs were found to vary substantially by urban/rural regions and between provinces; the ratios of highest to lowest provincial costs were 3.5 for visual inspection with acetic acid (VIA), 4.4 for cold knife conisation (CKC) and 4.6 for stage II cancer treatment. The HDI-based scaling method generally resulted in a better fit to reference costs than the GDP method.
conclusionsThese reference costs for cervical cancer can inform cost-effectiveness evaluation of cervical screening and HPV vaccination in China. HDI-based methods for cost-scaling-based on social, as well as purely economic, factors-have potential to provide more accurate estimates.
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.