ArticleBMC public health2025
The effect of hrHPV prevalence on cervical cancer screening strategies: a cost-effectiveness study of Bangladesh.
Article in BMC public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Efficient high-risk human papillomavirus screening through pooled testing: a simulation study based on real-world data in low- and middle-income countries.Journal of global health · 2026Article
- Cost and cost-effectiveness of cervical cancer HPV DNA self-sampling: a systematic review.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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCervical cancer is the second most prominent cancer among women in Bangladesh, which is mainly caused by persistent infection with high-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV). This study aims to evaluate impact of hrHPV prevalence on cost-effectiveness of screening with self-sampling hrHPV testing versus visual inspection with acetic acid (VIA) for cervical cancer screening in low- and middle-income countries with Bangladesh as an example.
methodsA micro-simulation Markov model was developed from a health system perspective in Bangladesh to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of screening with self-sampling hrHPV testing followed by VIA and VIA as primary screening method followed by colposcopy. We compared these strategies in optimal (70%) and realistic (8.7%) uptake scenarios, considering different hrHPV prevalence rates. Key indicators for cost-effectiveness were number of prevented cervical cancers cases and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER).
resultsThe number of cervical cancers cases prevented by screening and cost-effectiveness of screening strategies increased as hrHPV prevalence increased. In both optimal and realistic uptake scenarios, hrHPV test + VIA strategy prevented more cancers than VIA + colposcopy strategy in most instances. Regardless of the uptake, both screening strategies were cost-effective compared to no screening within a hrHPV prevalence range of 2-30%, and the hrHPV test-based strategy was cost-effective compared with VIA-based strategy. When the price of hrHPV test was estimated 50% lower (10 USD), the hrHPV test-based strategy gained more life years at nearly the same cost as the VIA-based strategy.
conclusionsOur study demonstrates that the hrHPV test + VIA strategy is cost-effective both compared to no screening and VIA + colposcopy screening strategy under the optimal (70%) and realistic (8.7%) uptake scenarios, with greater cost-effectiveness at higher hrHPV prevalence levels. While VIA-based strategy is cheaper, self-sampling hrHPV test-based strategy offers greater health benefits. Implementing hrHPV testing in national screening programs at lower hrHPV test prices is crucial for promoting health equity and accelerating cervical cancer elimination worldwide. In resource-constrained settings, screening with hrHPV testing should initially target high-prevalence populations.
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.