ArticleBMJ global health2022
Towards the elimination of cervical cancer in low-income and lower-middle-income countries: modelled evaluation of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of point-of-care HPV self-collected screening and treatment in Papua New Guinea.
Article in BMJ global health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed.
- HPV DNA testing and treatment strategies for cervical pre-cancer among women living with HIV in Papua New Guinea: a prospective clinical cohort study.BMC global and public health · 2026Article
- Cost and cost-effectiveness of cervical cancer HPV DNA self-sampling: a systematic review.BMJ public health · 2026Article
- Cost-effectiveness of self-sampling and enhanced strategies for HPV prevention among men who have sex with men in China: a modeling study.BMC medicine · 2025Article
- Modelling epidemiological and economics processes - the case of cervical cancer.Health economics review · 2025Review
- Utilization of screening services on cervical cancer and associated factors among female health workers in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.PloS one · 2025Article
- Building Capacity for Cervical Cancer Prevention in U.S.-Affiliated Pacific Islands: The Pacific Against Cervical Cancer Project.Journal of women's health (2002) · 2024Article
- Article
- Benefits, harms and cost-effectiveness of cervical screening, triage and treatment strategies for women in the general population.Nature medicine · 2023Article
- Article
- A Model for Empowering Rural Solutions for Cervical Cancer Prevention (He Tapu Te Whare Tangata): Protocol for a Cluster Randomized Crossover Trial.JMIR research protocols · 2023Article
- Lumican is a potential predictor on the efficacy of concurrent chemoradiotherapy in cervical squamous cell carcinoma.Heliyon · 2023Article
- Self-Collection Cervical Screening in the Asia-Pacific Region: A Scoping Review of Implementation Evidence.JCO global oncology · 2023Article
- Women's acceptability of a self-collect HPV same-day screen-and-treat program in a high burden setting in the Pacific.BMC health services research · 2022Article
- Implementing High-Risk Human Papillomavirus Self-Sampling for Cervical Cancer Screening in Ghana: A Study (CarciSCAN) Protocol.Cancer control : journal of the Moffitt Cancer CenterArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionWHO has launched updated cervical screening guidelines, including provisions for primary HPV screen-and-treat. Papua New Guinea (PNG) has a high burden of cervical cancer, but no national cervical screening programme. We recently completed the first field trials of a screen-and-treat algorithm using point-of-care self-collected HPV and same-day treatment (hereafter self-collected HPV S&T) and showed this had superior clinical performance and acceptability to visual inspection of the cervix with acetic acid (VIA). We, therefore, evaluated the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and resource implications of a national cervical screening programme using self-collected HPV S&T compared with VIA in PNG.
methodsAn extensively validated platform ('Policy1-Cervix') was calibrated to PNG. A total of 38 strategies were selected for investigation, and these incorporated variations in age ranges and screening frequencies and allowed for the identification of the optimal strategy across a wide range of possibilities. A selection of strategies that were identified as being the most effective and cost-effective were then selected for further investigation for longer-term outcomes and budget impact estimation. In the base case, we assumed primary HPV testing has a sensitivity to cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 2 (CIN2+) + of 91.8% and primary VIA of 51.5% based on our earlier field evaluation combined with evidence from the literature. We conservatively assumed HPV sampling and testing would cost US$18. Costs were estimated from a service provider perspective based on data from local field trials and local consultation.
resultsSelf-collected HPV S&T was more effective and more cost-effective than VIA. Either twice or thrice lifetime self-collected HPV S&T would be cost-effective at 0.5× gross domestic product (GDP) per capita (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio: US$460-US$656/life-years saved; 1GDPper-capita: US$2829 or PGK9446 (year 2019)) and could prevent 33 000-42 000 cases and 23 000-29 000 deaths in PNG over the next 50 years, if scale-up reached 70% coverage from 2023.
conclusionSelf-collected HPV S&T was effective and cost-effective in the high-burden, low-resource setting of PNG, and, if scaled-up rapidly, could prevent over 20 000 deaths over the next 50 years. VIA screening was not effective or cost-effective. These findings support, at a country level, WHO updated cervical screening guidelines and indicate that similar approaches could be appropriate for other low-resource settings.
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.