ArticlePloS one2020
Cost-effectiveness of cervical cancer screening with primary HPV testing for unvaccinated women in Sweden.
Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Are intersectoral costs considered in economic evaluations of interventions relating to sexually transmitted infections (STIs)? A systematic review.BMC public health · 2022Pooled it
- Secondary Prevention of Cervical Cancer: ASCO Resource-Stratified Guideline Update.JCO global oncology · 2022Guideline
- Redefining Cytotechnologist Practice in Sweden: National Survey on Workload, Expanded Roles, and Future Competency Needs.Acta cytologica · 2026Article
- Modeling optimal combination of breast and cervical cancer screening strategies in China.BMC women's health · 2025Article
- Cervical cancer: Challenges and prevention strategies: A narrative review.Health science reports · 2024Review
- Reply to: “Comments on the article entitled “Primary ADN-VPH screening in women under 30 years of age: health technology assessment”Revista colombiana de obstetricia y ginecologia · 2023Article
- Article
- Results from a cervical cancer screening program in Samsun, Turkey.BMC women's health · 2022Article
- Human exposome assessment platform.Environmental epidemiology (Philadelphia, Pa.) · 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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSweden revised their cervical cancer screening program in 2017 to include cytology-based screening for women aged 23-29 years and primary human papillomavirus (HPV) testing for women aged 30-64 years; however, alternative strategies may be preferred. To inform cervical cancer prevention policies for unvaccinated women, we evaluated the cost-effectiveness of alternative screening strategies, including the current Swedish guidelines.
methodsWe adapted a mathematical simulation model of HPV and cervical cancer to the Swedish context using primary epidemiologic data. We compared the cost-effectiveness of alternative screening strategies that varied by the age to start screening, the age to switch from cytology to HPV testing, HPV strategies not preceded by cytology, screening frequency, and management of HPV-positive/cytology-negative women.
resultsWe found that the current Swedish guidelines were more costly and less effective than alternative primary HPV-based strategies. All cost-efficient strategies involved primary HPV testing not preceded by cytology for younger women. Given a cost-effectiveness threshold of €85,619 per quality-adjusted life year gained, the optimal strategy involved 5-yearly primary HPV-based screening for women aged 23-50 years and 10-yearly HPV-based screening for women older than age 50 years.
conclusionsPrimary screening based on HPV alone may be considered for unvaccinated women for those countries with similar HPV burdens.
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.