ArticlePreventive medicine reports2022
Harms and benefits of cervical cancer screening among non-attenders in Switzerland: The transition towards HPV-based screening.
Article in Preventive medicine reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Opportunistic and Organized Cervical Cancer Screening: Impact on Lesion Severity and Surgical Outcomes in 9830 Cervical Conizations.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Factors influencing HPV vaccination intention and uptake behaviors among medical students based on the health belief model and vaccine hesitancy theory: a cross-sectional study.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- HPV-Based Self-Sampling in Cervical Cancer Screening: An Updated Review of the Current Evidence in the Literature.Cancers · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Human papillomavirus (HPV) testing is replacing cytological screening for cervical cancer. Our aim was to assess the expected benefits and harms of different cervical screening strategies. This study is sub-analysis of a previous cost-effectiveness study with a target population of unscreened women without cervical cancer aged ≥ 25 years. A recursive decision-tree with one-year cycles was used to model the life-long natural HPV history. Markov cohort simulations were used to assess the expected outcomes from the model. The outcomes of three strategies were compared with the absence of screening: HPV-testing on self-collected vaginal samples (Self-HPV) followed by colposcopy (Self-HPV/colpo), Self-HPV and triage with cytology (Self-HPV/PAP), cytology and triage with HPV (PAP/HPV). All screening strategies resulted in reductions in cancer cases and deaths. Self-HPV strategies were associated with a lower cancer incidence and mortality life-long, not only when performed every 3 years but also when Self-HPV was performed every 5 years vs cytology every 3 years. The gain in life expectancy obtained was 82 days with Self-HPV/colpo, 81 days with Self-HPV/PAP and 75 days with PAP/HPV compared to no screening. The number of lifetime total visits was greater with PAP/HPV compared with the Self-HPV strategies (13.13 vs < 3). The number of conizations remained relatively stable with the change of screening frequency and strategy. Self-HPV may represent a reasonable balance of harms and benefits when performed every 5 years compared to cytology every 3 years. Self-HPV/PAP yielded the most efficient harm to benefit ratio when using colposcopy as a proxy for harms.
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.