ArticleBMC women's health2021
Comparative cost analysis of cervical cancer screening programme based on molecular detection of HPV in Spain.
Article in BMC women's health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- RNA extended interventional nucleic acid longitudinal study: Clinical performance of Aptima messenger RNA HPV testing in cervical cancer screening with a 9-year follow-up.Cancer cytopathology · 2024Article
- Comparative Analysis of HPV Detection Efficiency: Evaluating Cobas 8800 Performance in Vaginal Self-Sampling versus Clinician-Collected Samples at a Regional Thai Hospital.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Performance of Aptima-HPV in the cervical cancer screening program of Portugal: a cost-analysis.BMC women's health · 2023Article
- Inter- and intraobserver agreement in whole-slide digital ThinPrep samples of low-grade squamous lesions of the cervix uteri with known high-risk HPV status: A multicentric international study.Cancer cytopathology · 2022Article
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 at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHPV cervical cancer screening (CCS) must use validated HPV tests based on the molecular detection of either viral mRNA (Aptima HPV Assay-AHPV) or DNA. AHPV has demonstrated the same cross-sectional and longitudinal sensitivity for the detection of HSIL/CIN2+ lesions but with greater specificity than HPV-DNA tests. The study aimed to estimate the total costs of a CCS with a primary HPV test based on the detection of mRNA compared to DNA in women aged 35-65 years for the National Health System.
methodsA decision-tree-based model to estimate the cost of the CCS until the first colposcopy was designed based on Spanish CCS guidelines. The total cost (€, 2019) for CCS with AHPV or DNA tests (HC2 and Cobas) was calculated, including HPV test, liquid-based cytology (LBC) and colposcopy, for a population of 7,263,529 women aged 35-65 years (assuming 70% coverage). Clinical inputs derived from a literature review were validated by a multidisciplinary expert panel. Data from head-to-head studies between different HPV tests were selected.
resultsThe use of AHPV showed reduction of 290,541 (- 35%) and 355,913 (- 40%) LBC compared to HC2 or Cobas, respectively. Furthermore, AHPV avoided 151,699 (- 47%) colposcopies versus HC2 and 151,165 (- 47%) versus Cobas. The total cost of CCS was € 282,747,877 with AHPV, € 322,587,588 with HC2 and € 324,614,490 with Cobas. Therefore, AHPV savings € - 39,839,711 versus HC2 and € - 41,866,613 versus Cobas.
conclusionsAssuming that 70% of women from 35 to 65 years attend the CCS programme, the cost of screening up to the first colposcopy using AHPV would provide cost savings of up to € 41.9 million versus DNA tests in Spain.
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.