↓ Skip to main content

Cost-effectiveness analysis of anal cancer screening in women with cervical neoplasia in British Columbia, Canada

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, June 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (68th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (60th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
44 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Cost-effectiveness analysis of anal cancer screening in women with cervical neoplasia in British Columbia, Canada
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, June 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12913-016-1442-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

I. Cromwell, M. Gaudet, S. J. Peacock, C. Aquino-Parsons

Abstract

Precursors to anal squamous cell carcinoma may be detectable through screening; however, the literature suggests that population-level testing is not cost-effective. Given that high-grade cervical neoplasia (CIN) is associated with an increased risk of developing anal cancer, and in light of changing guidelines for the follow-up and management of cervical neoplasia, it is worthwhile to examine the costs and effectiveness of an anal cancer screening program delivered to women with previously-detected CIN. A model of anal cancer screening and treatment was constructed, to estimate the cost-effectiveness of a population of CIN II/III+ women who were screened using anal cytology vs. one that received no anal cancer screening. Costs were based on Canadian estimates, and survival was based on estimates taken from the scientific literature. Effectiveness was measured in terms of life years gained (LYG) and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). The model was run for 50 cycles, with each cycle representing one year. Incremental cost (screened vs. unscreened) was $82.17 per woman in the model. Incremental effectiveness was 0.004 LYG, and was equivalent to zero in terms of QALY. An ICER of $20,561/LYG was calculated, while no meaningful incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) could be calculated for quality-adjusted survival. Our analysis suggests that anal cancer screening is cost-effective in terms of overall survival in women with a previous diagnosis of CIN II or CIN III as part of regular follow-up, but may not contribute meaningfully-different quality-adjusted survival due to the adverse effects of screening-related interventions.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 44 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 44 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 8 18%
Student > Master 7 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 11%
Other 2 5%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 5%
Other 7 16%
Unknown 13 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 25%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 5%
Engineering 2 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 5%
Other 9 20%
Unknown 15 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 November 2019.
All research outputs
#6,469,399
of 22,953,506 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#3,126
of 7,684 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#106,896
of 352,587 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#60
of 158 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,953,506 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,684 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 352,587 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 158 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% of its contemporaries.