Re-use of this article is permitted in accordance with the Terms and Conditions set out at http://wileyonlinelibrary.com/onlineopen#OnlineOpen_Terms
Cost-effectiveness of cervical cancer screening: cytology versus human papillomavirus DNA testing
Article first published online: 18 JAN 2012
© 2012 The Authors BJOG An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology © 2012 RCOG
BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology
Volume 119, Issue 6, pages 699–709, May 2012
How to Cite
van Rosmalen, J., de Kok, I. and van Ballegooijen, M. (2012), Cost-effectiveness of cervical cancer screening: cytology versus human papillomavirus DNA testing. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, 119: 699–709. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2011.03228.x
- Issue published online: 10 APR 2012
- Article first published online: 18 JAN 2012
- Accepted 18 October 2011. Published Online 18 January 2012.
Figure S1. Screening strategies evaluated in the cost-effectiveness analysis: +, positive HPV test; –, negative HPV test; Colp, referral for colposcopy; Cyt, indicates cytology; HPV, HPV DNA testing; t = 0, time of primary test; t = 6 and t = 18 indicates 6 and 18 months after the primary test, respectively.
Table S1. Efficient screening programmes, characterised by the screening strategy, the number of scheduled examinations, the screening interval and the age range that maximise the number of QALYs gained (discounted at 3%) relative to the costs (discounted at 3%). For each policy, the changes in costs and effects per 100 000 women and the ICER are given.
Table S2. Undiscounted effects per 100 000 simulated women in the efficient screening programmes shown in Table S1: total effects, from 2011 onwards, for the remainder of the lives of the simulated women.
Table S3. Sensitivity analyses: efficient screening programmes with ICERs just below the €20 000 and €50 000 per QALY cost-effectiveness thresholds, in various situations. All results are per 100 000 simulated women, discounted using a 3% rate for costs and effects, except for the sensitivity analysis using differential disco.
|BJO_3228_sm_FigS1.pdf||90K||Supporting info item|
|BJO_3228_sm_TableS1.pdf||20K||Supporting info item|
|BJO_3228_sm_TableS2.pdf||27K||Supporting info item|
|BJO_3228_sm_TableS3.pdf||57K||Supporting info item|
Please note: Wiley Blackwell is not responsible for the content or functionality of any supporting information supplied by the authors. Any queries (other than missing content) should be directed to the corresponding author for the article.