ArticleCancers2022
Cost-Effectiveness of Genetic Testing for All Women Diagnosed with Breast Cancer in China.
Article in Cancers, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- The Cost Effectiveness of Genomic Medicine in Cancer Control: A Systematic Literature Review.Applied health economics and health policy · 2025Pooled it
- Economic evaluation of germline genetic testing for breast cancer in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review.BMC cancer · 2024Pooled it
- Towards a Multi-sectoral Approach to Population Health: A Scoping Review of Cross-sectoral Evaluations of Health Interventions.Applied health economics and health policy · 2026Review
- Micro-costing of genetic and genomic testing in oncology: a systematic review of laboratory resources and costs.Health economics review · 2026Review
- Real-World Epidemiology, Clinical Characteristics and Outcomes of Women with Germline BRCA Mutation and Early Breast Cancer in China.Oncology and therapy · 2025Article
- How is Value Defined in Molecular Testing in Cancer? A Scoping Review.Applied health economics and health policy · 2025Article
- Cost-effectiveness analysis of population-basedFrontiers in public health · 2025Article
- Prevalence, prognosis, and health care resource utilization in carriers of pathogenic germline variants in BRCA1/2 with incident early-stage breast cancer: a Finnish population-based study.Acta oncologica (Stockholm, Sweden) · 2024Observational
- Genetic Testing Enhances the Precision Diagnosis and Treatment of Breast Cancer.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Review
- Breast Cancer Screening Should Embrace Precision Medicine: Evidence by Reviewing Economic Evaluations in China.Advances in therapy · 2023Review
- A MALDI-TOF mass spectrometry-based method for detection of copy number variations inFrontiers in molecular biosciences · 2023Article
- Article
- Using Genetic Testing at Cancer Diagnosis for Breast Cancer Control.China CDC weekly · 2022Article
- Overview on population screening for carriers with germline BRCA mutation in China.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Review
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
Abstract
Unselected multigene testing for all women with breast cancer (BC) identifies more cancer susceptibility gene (CSG) carriers who can benefit from precision prevention compared with family history (FH)/clinical-criteria-based guidelines. Very little CSG testing is undertaken in middle-income countries such as China, and its cost-effectiveness remains unaddressed. We aimed to estimate cost-effectiveness and population impact of multigene testing for all Chinese BC patients. Data from 8085 unselected BC patients recruited to a Peking University Cancer Hospital study were used for microsimulation modeling, comparing three strategies in the Chinese setting: all BC women undergo
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.