Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36352410›Full record

ArticleBMC medicine2022

Rapid elimination of cervical cancer while maintaining the harms and benefits ratio of cervical cancer screening: a modelling study.

Erik E L Jansen, Inge M C M de Kok, Sylvia Kaljouw, Erhan Demirel, Harry J de Koning, Jan A C Hontelez

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 17% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Optimizing the Harms and Benefits of Cervical Screening in a Partially Vaccinated Population in Ontario, Canada: A Modeling Study.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Strategies to accelerate the elimination of cervical cancer in British Columbia, Canada: a modelling study.CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2024
    Article
  8. Observational
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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Erik E L JansenDepartment of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. e.e.l.jansen@erasmusmc.nl.ORCID 0000-0003-0436-6918
Inge M C M de KokDepartment of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-9419-0452
Sylvia KaljouwDepartment of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-7289-403X
Erhan DemirelDepartment of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Harry J de KoningDepartment of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-9963-1827
Jan A C HontelezDepartment of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-9323-7861
Erasmus MC · NLHeidelberg University · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHuman papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination and intensifying screening expedite cervical cancer (CC) elimination, yet also deteriorate the balance between harms and benefits of screening. We aimed to find screening strategies that eliminate CC rapidly but maintain an acceptable harms-benefits ratio of screening.

methodsTwo microsimulation models (STDSIM and MISCAN) were applied to simulate HPV transmission and CC screening for the Dutch female population between 2022 and 2100. We estimated the CC elimination year and harms-benefits ratios of screening for 228 unique scenarios varying in vaccination (coverage and vaccine type) and screening (coverage and number of lifetime invitations in vaccinated cohorts). The acceptable harms-benefits ratio was defined as the number of women needed to refer (NNR) to prevent one CC death under the current programme for unvaccinated cohorts (82.17).

resultsUnder current vaccination conditions (bivalent vaccine, 55% coverage in girls, 27.5% coverage in boys), maintaining current screening conditions is projected to eliminate CC by 2042, but increases the present NNR with 41%. Reducing the number of lifetime screens from presently five to three and increasing screening coverage (61% to 70%) would prevent an increase in harms and only delay elimination by 1 year. Scaling vaccination coverage to 90% in boys and girls with the nonavalent vaccine is estimated to eliminate CC by 2040 under current screening conditions, but exceeds the acceptable NNR with 23%. Here, changing from five to two lifetime screens would keep the NNR acceptable without delaying CC elimination.

conclusionsDe-intensifying CC screening in vaccinated cohorts leads to little or no delay in CC elimination while it substantially reduces the harms of screening. Therefore, de-intensifying CC screening in vaccinated cohorts should be considered to ensure acceptable harms-benefits ratios on the road to CC elimination.

Indexed as

Papillomavirus InfectionsPapillomavirus VaccinesUterine Cervical NeoplasmsCost-Benefit AnalysisEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHumansMaleMass ScreeningVaccinationPapillomavirus VaccinesCervical cancerEliminationHarms-benefits ratioScreeningVaccination

Identifiers

PMID36352410
PMCPMC9645325
OpenAlexW4308650346

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.