ArticleValue in health regional issues2025
Breast Cancer Screening Using Clinical Breast Examination: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis for South Africa.
Article in Value in health regional issues, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 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
- Determinants of Early-Stage Breast Cancer Presentation in Western Kazakhstan: A Population-Based Analysis of Urban-Rural Disparities and Diagnostic Pathways (2015-2025).Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Article
- Ten Recommendations for Modelling Cost Effectiveness of Screening: Perspectives of an International Stakeholder Group.PharmacoEconomics · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesThe World Health Organization emphasizes screening and early diagnosis to reduce advanced cancer incidence and mortality. In low-to-middle-income countries, breast cancer (BC) survival rates are low because of late detection. South Africa's policy recommends twice-yearly clinical breast examinations (CBEs) for asymptomatic women aged 40 to 69. We assessed the impact of scaling up CBE screening on mortality and cost-effectiveness.
methodsUsing trial data on downstaging, we compared the current baseline (5% coverage) with scenario 1 (25% coverage by year 5 [ie, 5% increase annually]) and scenario 2 (75% coverage by year 5, [ie, 17.5% increase annually]). A cohort model tracked women from screening to diagnosis, estimating downstaging's impact on BC cases over their lifetime. Costs from the healthcare payer's perspective are presented in 2022 US dollars.
resultsFive-year screen detection rates were 2.39 and 2.08 per 1000 women screened for scenarios 1 and 2, respectively. Scenario 1 reduced BC mortality by 0.7% and scenario 2 by 2.3%. Compared with no screening, the current baseline screening program averts 1645 disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) at $20 341/DALY averted. Scenario 1 averted 3823 DALYs with economic efficiency improving to $17 776/DALY averted, whereas scenario 2 averted 12 165 DALYs at $19 552/DALY averted.
conclusionsCBE scale-up effectively saves life years but is not cost-effective under the country's opportunity cost-derived threshold of $3015/DALY averted. However, decisions on the best screening policy are not solely based on cost-effectiveness. They involve careful consideration of budgetary constraints and competing healthcare priorities. Scale-up should consider system capacity, minimum care standards and cost-effective early detection strategies.
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.