ArticleBMC women's health2025
Modeling optimal combination of breast and cervical cancer screening strategies in China.
Article in BMC women's health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Health Economic Evaluations of Breast Cancer Screening Strategies: A Systematic Review Focusing on Methodology and Quality Assessment.Applied health economics and health policy · 2026Pooled it
- Cost-effectiveness of two major population-based breast cancer screening programmes in China: a model-based economic evaluation.BMJ public health · 2026Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBreast and cervical cancers are the commonest cancers among women. Secondary prevention of cancer through screening minimizes disease burden and improves survival outcomes. Optimizing screening strategies for breast and cervical cancers is a challenge in resource-limited settings with a high population density such as China. Therefore, we aimed at assessing the efficiency of different combined screening strategies for breast and cervical cancers under different budgets in China.
methodsMarkov cohort model was used to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of 36 strategy combinations for breast and cervical cancer screening with varying screening modality and intervals. The results were used as inputs in the Integer Programming (IP) model to determine the combination of the different screening options under different budgets.
resultsThe optimal combination strategy was biennial breast ultrasonography (BUS) and mammography (MAM) in parallel screening and quinquennial human papillomavirus (HPV) for breast and cervical cancer screening under the threshold of the annual per capita social cost investment (PCSCI) (18.80 USD) in China. Using this strategy, the total investment cost for 100,000 females was 1,877,984.50 USD, and the incremental life-years compared with no screening was 3,122 life-years. The optimal combination strategy included annual clinical breast examination (CBE), BUS and MAM in series screening, and biennial thin-layer liquid-based cytology (TCT) and HPV in series screening with the annual PCSCI reaching 37.60 USD. Thereafter, as the cost input continued to increase, the optimal combination strategy remained unchanged, and the sum of incremental life-years and actual input costs did not increase.
conclusionsFrom a social cost-benefit perspective, biennial BUS and MAM in parallel screening, and quinquennial HPV screening is the most efficient combination strategy with limited budget, while annual CBE, BUS and MAM in series screening and biennial TCT and HPV in series screening are the most efficient combination strategy with sufficient budget.
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.