SynthesisBMC health services research2026
Cost-effectiveness studies evaluating HPV self-sampling for cervical cancer screening - a systematic review.
Synthesis in BMC health services research, 2026. 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCervical cancer screening programs are established in most upper middle- and high-income countries (UMICs and HICs), yet many eligible women remain underscreened or unscreened. Human papillomavirus (HPV) testing by self-sampling (HPV-SS) has the potential to increase participation rates. In this study, we aim to systematically assess and synthesize the current evidence on cost-effectiveness of implementing HPV-SS in established cervical cancer screening programs in UMICs and HICs.
methodsWe searched relevant databases (until 02/2024) for studies on the cost-effectiveness of HPV-SS in cervical cancer screening in UMICs and HICs. Following PRISMA guidelines, we included empirical and decision-analytic modelling studies published in English or German reporting health-economic outcomes that can be expressed as incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER). We extracted key study characteristics (e.g. target population, study type) and outcomes (e.g. ICER) and summarized them in systematic evidence tables. Costs were converted to 2024 Euro for cross-country comparison.
resultsOf 612 studies, 25 studies met inclusion criteria: 16 model-based cost-effectiveness evaluations and nine economic evaluations along trials. Studies were mainly conducted in HICs. HPV-SS was compared with standard care (e.g. clinician-collected conventional cytology, Pap smear, HPV-testing) or no screening. Eight studies assessed HPV-SS for all screening-eligible women, while 17 studies focused on women not attending regular screening. ICERs were reported in stepwise incremental fashion (i.e. comparing non-dominated strategy to the next non-dominated strategy) in 13 studies, and reported comparing each strategy to a reference each in ten studies. Overall HPV-SS was reported to be cost-effective or cost-saving compared to no screening or standard of care in all but one study. In non-attendees, ICERs ranged from being cost-saving for primary HPV screening with offering HPV-SS vs. not offering HPV-SS (Netherlands) to 60,000 Euro/LYG for a combined strategy (Pap smear until age 35 followed by 5-yearly HPV-SS until age 60) vs. no screening (Sweden). HPV-SS was shown to increase screening participation in studies evaluating screening attendance.
conclusionBased on our results, HPV-SS can be a practical, feasible and cost-effective approach to increase screening coverage. PROSPERO REGISTRATION: CRD42024499233.
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.