ArticleCancer medicine2024
Cost-Effectiveness of Computer-Assisted Cytology in a Primary hrHPV-Based Cervical Cancer Screening Programme.
Article in Cancer medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundComputer-assisted screening (CAS) shows equal performance compared to manual screening, although results are heterogeneous. Furthermore, using CAS may save costs through a potentially increased screening productivity of technicians, therefore also offering a solution for temporary and structural capacity shortage. We evaluated the circumstances under which CAS will be cost-effective compared to manual cytology triage in a primary HPV-based cervical screening programme.
methodsMicrosimulation model MISCAN-Cervix was used to evaluate 198 different CAS scenarios with varying probabilities to detect cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 1 (CIN1) and CIN3 and cost reductions per test, compared to manual cytology triage. Cost-effectiveness was evaluated by costs per (quality-adjusted) life year ((QA)LY) gained.
resultsCAS will be cost-effective in all scenarios, except for the following combinations: (1) no cost reduction and an increased probability of detecting CIN1, (2) a cost reduction of €2 per test and an increased probability of detecting CIN1 from 4% onwards or (3) a cost reduction of €4 per test and an increased probability of detecting CIN1 from 6% onwards, compared to manual cytology triage. All CAS scenarios with any reduction in the probability of detecting CIN1 (i.e., increased CIN2+ specificity), or a reduction in costs from €6 per test onwards suggested a more cost-effective strategy compared to manual cytology triage.
conclusionAs we based our analysis on a realistic range in costs and test performance, the implementation of CAS is likely to be cost-effective. Our results can be used as a guideline to advise when to choose CAS instead of manual cytology triage.
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.