The cost-effectiveness of cervical-vaginal rescreening.
case_report · Level V
Where this comes from
- Record sourced from PubMed, PMID 9353091.
- No licence information is recorded for this record.
- Because redistribution is not established, this page shows the abstract only. Follow the links below for the full text.
Abstract
Although most laboratories practice 10% manual rescreening, the cost-effectiveness of this and other rescreening strategies rarely has been evaluated. Using data obtained from the medical literature, a decision model was created in which rescreening strategies were compared with nonrescreening strategies for the number of false-negative and false-positive diagnoses, cancers, life expectancy, and cost-effectiveness. The strategy of 10% rescreening with a repeated cervical-vaginal smear yielded almost no gain in life expectancy compared with an equivalent strategy with no rescreening. With 100% rescreening, the gain in life expectancy was only 0.24 days per patient. A 100% rescreening strategy generally was more cost-effective than a no-rescreening strategy at costs of rescreening varying from $2 to $10 per patient. A 10% rescreening strategy has limited utility. In addition, 100% rescreening strategies are more cost-effective than nonrescreening strategies, but only if the rescreening cost is low.
Medical subject headings
- Mass Screening
- Uterine Cervical Neoplasms
- Vaginal Smears