ArticleBMJ public health2026
Cost-effectiveness of two major population-based breast cancer screening programmes in China: a model-based economic evaluation.
Article in BMJ public health, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Chinese women face a rising burden of breast cancer and require effective screening strategies suitable for a developing-country context. However, the cost-effectiveness of national breast cancer screening programmes in China remains unclear. Methods: A hybrid decision tree-Markov model simulated lifetime costs and outcomes for 100 000 women aged 30-80 years from a societal perspective under rural and urban screening settings. Screening effectiveness was derived from national multicentre data and regional meta-analyses, with costs based on national surveys and multicentre treatment estimates. Parameter uncertainties were evaluated using deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. Results: The incremental cost per quality adjusted life year (QALY) gained ranged from US$0.04 to US$0.07 million for Cervical Cancer and Breast Cancer Screening Programme for Women-Breast Cancer (CCBCSPW-BC) and US$0.08 to US$0.13 million for Cancer Screening Programme in Urban Areas-Breast Cancer (CanSPUA-BC) across screening frequencies. At current utilisation levels, neither programme was cost-effective at willingness-to-pay thresholds of one or three times China's per capita gross domestic product although CCBCSPW-BC demonstrated better economic performance. Scenario analysis showed that if referral compliance increased to ≥70% in rural settings or ≥80% in urban settings, CCBCSPW-BC screening every 3-5 years could meet cost-effectiveness thresholds. Conclusion: Under current implementation conditions, neither programme is cost-effective. Improving referral compliance is a key barrier to enhancing screening effectiveness. Strengthening targeting strategies and optimising screening pathways will be critical to balance overdiagnosis and missed detection in future screening practice.
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.