ArticleBMC medicine2023
Maximizing the cost-effectiveness of cervical screening in the context of routine HPV vaccination by optimizing screening strategies with respect to vaccine uptake: a modeling analysis.
Article in BMC medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Human papillomavirus and vaccine knowledge, willingness, and uptake among university students: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC public health · 2025Pooled it
- Human Papillomavirus Across the Reproductive Lifespan: An Integrative Review of Fertility, Pregnancy Outcomes, and Fertility-Sparing Management.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025Pooled it
- Cost-effectiveness and health impact of gender-neutral and single-dose HPV vaccination in Hong Kong: a modeling analysis.The Lancet regional health. Western Pacific · 2026Article
- Optimal cervical cancer screening strategies for unvaccinated and HPV-vaccinated cohorts in the United States: a comprehensive comparative modeling analysis.Lancet regional health. Americas · 2026Article
- Modelling the epidemic dynamics of HPV among women in China and optimization of ongoing cervical cancer elimination strategies.BMC medicine · 2026Article
- Minimal benefit of co-testing over HPV primary screening with cytology triage from resource-limited settings in China.Communications medicine · 2026Article
- Review
- Cervical cancer: Challenges and prevention strategies: A narrative review.Health science reports · 2024Review
- Cervical screening among Chinese females in the era of HPV vaccination: a population-based survey on screening uptake and regular screening following an 18-year organized screening program.Journal of gynecologic oncology · 2024Article
- The awareness and acceptance of HPV vaccines among parents of primary and junior high school students in China: a meta-analysis.Infectious medicine · 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
6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundRegarding primary and secondary cervical cancer prevention, the World Health Organization proposed the cervical cancer elimination strategy that requires countries to achieve 90% uptake of human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines and 70% screening uptake. The optimal cervical screening strategy is likely different for unvaccinated and vaccinated cohorts upon national HPV immunization. However, health authorities typically only provide a one-size-fits-all recommendation for the general population. We aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness for determining the optimal screening strategies for vaccinated and unvaccinated cohorts.
methodsWe considered the women population in Hong Kong which has a unique HPV infection and cervical cancer epidemiology compared to other regions in China and Asia. We used mathematical models which comprise a deterministic age-structured compartmental dynamic component and a stochastic individual-based cohort component to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of screening strategies for cervical screening. Following the recommendations in local guidelines in Hong Kong, we considered strategies that involved cytology, HPV testing, or co-testing as primary cervical screening. We also explored the impacts of adopting alternative de-intensified strategies for vaccinated cohorts. The 3-year cytology screening was used as the base comparator while no screening was also considered for vaccinated cohorts. Women's lifetime life years, quality-adjusted life years, and costs of screening and treatment were estimated from the societal perspective based on the year 2022 and were discounted by 3% annually. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were compared to a willingness to pay (WTP) threshold of one gross domestic product per capita (US $47,792). Probabilistic and one-way sensitivity analyses were conducted.
resultsAmong unvaccinated cohorts, the strategy that adds reflex HPV to triage mild cytology abnormality generated more life years saved than cytology-only screening and could be a cost-effective alternative. Among vaccinated cohorts, when vaccine uptake was 85% (based on the uptake in 2022), all guideline-based strategies (including the cytology-only screening) had ICERs above the WTP threshold when compared with no screening if the vaccine-induced protection duration was 20 years or longer. Under the same conditions, HPV testing with genotyping triage had ICERs (compared with no screening) below the WTP threshold if the routine screening interval was lengthened to 10 and 15 years or screening was initiated at ages 30 and 35 years.
conclusionsHPV testing is a cost-effective alternative to cytology for vaccinated cohorts, and the associated optimal screening frequency depends on vaccine uptake. Health authorities should optimize screening recommendations by accounting for population vaccine uptake.
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.