Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34342797›Full record

SynthesisThe European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care2021

Cost effectiveness of breast cancer screening and prevention: a systematic review with a focus on risk-adapted strategies.

Nikolai Mühlberger, Gaby Sroczynski, Artemisa Gogollari, Beate Jahn, Nora Pashayan, Ewout Steyerberg, Martin Widschwendter, Uwe Siebert

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

25 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Guideline
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Earlier screening, better outcomes? Revisiting breast cancer screening guidelines for women in their 40s.Canadian journal of public health = Revue canadienne de sante publique · 2026
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  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

8 authors.

Nikolai MühlbergerInstitute of Public Health, Medical Decision Making and Health Technology Assessment, Department of Public Health, Health Services Research and Health Technology Assessment, UMIT-University for Health Sciences, Medical Informatics and Technology, Eduard-Wallnoefer-Zentrum I, 6060, Hall i.T, Austria.
Gaby SroczynskiInstitute of Public Health, Medical Decision Making and Health Technology Assessment, Department of Public Health, Health Services Research and Health Technology Assessment, UMIT-University for Health Sciences, Medical Informatics and Technology, Eduard-Wallnoefer-Zentrum I, 6060, Hall i.T, Austria.
Artemisa GogollariInstitute of Public Health, Medical Decision Making and Health Technology Assessment, Department of Public Health, Health Services Research and Health Technology Assessment, UMIT-University for Health Sciences, Medical Informatics and Technology, Eduard-Wallnoefer-Zentrum I, 6060, Hall i.T, Austria.
Beate JahnInstitute of Public Health, Medical Decision Making and Health Technology Assessment, Department of Public Health, Health Services Research and Health Technology Assessment, UMIT-University for Health Sciences, Medical Informatics and Technology, Eduard-Wallnoefer-Zentrum I, 6060, Hall i.T, Austria.
Nora PashayanInstitute of Epidemiology and Healthcare, Department of Applied Health Research, UCL-University College London, 1-19 Torrington Place, London, WC1E 7HB, UK.
Ewout SteyerbergDepartment of Public Health, Erasmus MC, PO Box 9600, 3000 CA, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Martin WidschwendterDepartment of Women's Cancer, EGA Institute for Women's Health, UCL - University College London, 74 Huntley St, Rm 340, London, WC1E 6AU, UK.
Uwe SiebertInstitute of Public Health, Medical Decision Making and Health Technology Assessment, Department of Public Health, Health Services Research and Health Technology Assessment, UMIT-University for Health Sciences, Medical Informatics and Technology, Eduard-Wallnoefer-Zentrum I, 6060, Hall i.T, Austria. public-health@umit.at.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6425-7671

Funding

Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme 634570
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesBenefit and cost effectiveness of breast cancer screening are still matters of controversy. Risk-adapted strategies are proposed to improve its benefit-harm and cost-benefit relations. Our objective was to perform a systematic review on economic breast cancer models evaluating primary and secondary prevention strategies in the European health care setting, with specific focus on model results, model characteristics, and risk-adapted strategies.

methodsLiterature databases were systematically searched for economic breast cancer models evaluating the cost effectiveness of breast cancer screening and prevention strategies in the European health care context. Characteristics, methodological details and results of the identified studies are reported in evidence tables. Economic model outputs are standardized to achieve comparable cost-effectiveness ratios.

resultsThirty-two economic evaluations of breast cancer screening and seven evaluations of primary breast cancer prevention were included. Five screening studies and none of the prevention studies considered risk-adapted strategies. Studies differed in methodologic features. Only about half of the screening studies modeled overdiagnosis-related harms, most often indirectly and without reporting their magnitude. All models predict gains in life expectancy and/or quality-adjusted life expectancy at acceptable costs. However, risk-adapted screening was shown to be more effective and efficient than conventional screening.

conclusionsEconomic models suggest that breast cancer screening and prevention are cost effective in the European setting. All screening models predict gains in life expectancy, which has not yet been confirmed by trials. European models evaluating risk-adapted screening strategies are rare, but suggest that risk-adapted screening is more effective and efficient than conventional screening.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsCost-Benefit AnalysisEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHumansModels, EconomicQuality-Adjusted Life YearsBreast cancer preventionBreast cancer screeningCost effectivenessDecision analysisOverdiagnosisRisk stratification

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.