Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35945642›Full record

SynthesisSystematic reviews2022

A systematic review of economic evaluations of cervical cancer screening methods.

Thatohatsi Sefuthi, Lungiswa Nkonki

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Systematic reviews, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.5field-weighted citation impact, top 10% of its field
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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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

2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Thatohatsi SefuthiDivision of Health Systems and Public Health, Global Health Department, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch, South Africa. tsefuthi@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0002-7738-2444
Lungiswa NkonkiHealth Economics, Division of Health Systems and Public Health, Global Health Department, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch, South Africa.
Stellenbosch University · ZAWestern Cape Department of Health · ZA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe aims of this systematic review were to (1) identify primary- and model-based economic evaluations of cervical cancer screening methods and to (2) provide a contextual summary of valuation outcomes associated with three types of cervical cancer screening tests: visual inspection with acetic acid, human papillomavirus deoxyribonucleic acid, and Papanicolaou smear.

introductionCervical cancer screening is an important public health priority with the potential to improve the detection of precancerous lesions in high-risk females for early intervention and disease prevention. Test performance and cost-effectiveness differ based on the specific screening method used across different platforms. There is a need to appraise existing economic evaluations of cervical cancer screening methods.

methodsThis review considered primary-based and model-based full economic evaluations of cervical cancer screening methods. The evaluation methods of interest included cost-effectiveness analysis, cost-utility analysis, cost-minimization analysis, cost-benefit analysis, and cost-consequence analysis. We searched Scopus, PubMed, National Health Economic Evaluation Database (NH EED), Cochrane, and the Health Economic Evaluation Database for full economic evaluations of cancer screening methods. No formal date restrictions were applied. Model-based and primary-based full economic evaluations were included. A critical appraisal of included studies was performed by the main investigator, while a second independent reviewer assessed critical appraisal findings for any inconsistencies. Data were extracted using a standardised data extraction tool for economic evaluations. The ultimate outcomes of costs, effectiveness, benefits, and utilities of cervical cancer screening modalities were extracted from included studies, analysed, and summarised.

resultsFrom a total of 671 screened studies, 44 studies met the study inclusion criteria. Forty-three studies were cost-effectiveness analyses, one study reported both cost-utility and cost-effectiveness outcomes, and another study reported cost utilities of cervical cancer screening methods only. Human papillomavirus (HPV) DNA testing was reported as a dominant stand-alone screening test by 14 studies, while five studies reported visual inspection with acetic acid (VIA) as a dominant stand-alone screening test. Primary HPV screening strategies were dominant in 21 studies, while three studies reported cytology-based screening strategies as the dominant screening method.

conclusionsExisting evidence indicates that HPV-based and VIA testing strategies are cost-effective, but this is dependent on setting. Our review suggests the limited cost-effectiveness of cytology-based testing, which may be due in part to the need for specific infrastructures and human resources. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42020212454 .

Indexed as

Papillomavirus InfectionsUterine Cervical NeoplasmsCost-Benefit AnalysisEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHumansMass ScreeningVaginal Smears

Identifiers

PMID35945642
PMCPMC9361672
OpenAlexW4291284616

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.