ArticleFrontiers in public health2025
Cost-effectiveness of cervical cancer screening and HPV vaccination: a Markov model from the healthcare payer perspective.
Article in Frontiers in public health, 2025. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Substantial progress has been made in cervical cancer screening and HPV vaccination in China. However, evidence on the cost-effectiveness of these interventions remains scarce, particularly for combined vaccination and screening strategies at the provincial level. To address this gap, we evaluated the cost-effectiveness of alternative cervical cancer prevention strategies in a southern province of China from the healthcare payer perspective. Methods: A Markov model was constructed to simulate a cohort of 100,000 females beginning at age 9 and followed until death (up to 100 years). The model compared the outcomes of bivalent, quadrivalent, and 9-valent HPV vaccines combined with two screening methods: TCT and HPV testing. Analyses were conducted from the healthcare payer perspective, considering only direct medical costs. The primary outcome was quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), discounted at 3% annually. Herd immunity effects were not incorporated. Model calibration relied on data from the China Health Statistics Yearbook, and sensitivity analyses assessed parameter uncertainty. Reporting followed the CHEERS 2024 guidelines. Results: Thirteen strategies were evaluated, including no intervention, screening alone, and combinations of screening with the three HPV vaccines. The combination of HPV testing and the 9-valent vaccine was the most cost-effective, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of ¥139.58 per QALY, well below the willingness-to-pay threshold. By contrast, TCT combined with the 9-valent vaccine yielded the highest ICER at ¥193,240.60 per QALY, exceeding the threshold. Sensitivity analyses showed ICER estimates were most influenced by screening coverage, vaccination uptake, test sensitivity, and the discount rate. Conclusion: Within the current resource and policy context, combining HPV testing with the 9-valent vaccine provides the highest economic value. This strategy offers evidence to guide future cervical cancer prevention policies in southern China.
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.