ArticleCMAJ open2018
Cost-effectiveness of mammography from a publicly funded health care system perspective.
Article in CMAJ open, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Health Economic Evaluations of Breast Cancer Screening Strategies: A Systematic Review Focusing on Methodology and Quality Assessment.Applied health economics and health policy · 2026Pooled it
- Benefits and harms of annual, biennial, or triennial breast cancer mammography screening for women at average risk of breast cancer: a systematic review for the European Commission Initiative on Breast Cancer (ECIBC).British journal of cancer · 2022Pooled it
- Economic evaluation of personalised versus conventional risk assessment for women who have undergone testing for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer genes: a modelling study.Journal of medical genetics · 2025Article
- Examining breast cancer screening recommendations in Canada: The projected resource impact of screening among women aged 40-49.Journal of medical screening · 2025Article
- Cost-Effectiveness of Breast Cancer Screening Using Digital Mammography in Canada.JAMA network open · 2025Article
- Healthcare and Cancer Treatment Costs of Breast Screening Outcomes among Higher than Average Risk Women.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2023Article
- Article
- Using Real-World Data to Determine Health System Costs of Ontario Women Screened for Breast Cancer.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2022Article
- The Impact of Organised Screening Programs on Breast Cancer Stage at Diagnosis for Canadian Women Aged 40-49 and 50-59.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2022Article
- Cost-effectiveness of using artificial intelligence versus polygenic risk score to guide breast cancer screening.BMC cancer · 2022Article
- Personalized Risk Assessment for Prevention and Early Detection of Breast Cancer: Integration and Implementation (PERSPECTIVE I&I).Journal of personalized medicine · 2021Article
- Cost-Utility of Early Breast Cancer Surveillance in Survivors of Thoracic Radiation-Treated Adolescent Hodgkin Lymphoma.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe implementation of population-wide breast cancer screening programs has important budget implications. We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of various breast cancer screening scenarios in Canada from a publicly funded health care system perspective using an established breast cancer simulation model.
methodsBreast cancer incidence, outcomes and total health care system costs (screening, investigation, diagnosis and treatment) for the Canadian health care environment were modelled. The model predicted costs (in 2012 dollars), life-years gained and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained for 11 active screening scenarios that varied by age range for starting and stopping screening (40-74 yr) and frequency of screening (annual, biennial or triennial) relative to no screening. All outcomes were discounted. Marginal and incremental cost-effectiveness analyses were conducted. One-way sensitivity analyses of key parameters assessed robustness.
resultsThe lifetime overall costs (undiscounted) to the health care system for annual screening per 1000 women ranged from $7.4 million (for women aged 50-69 yr) to $10.7 million (40-74 yr). For biennial and triennial screening per 1000 women (aged 50-74 yr), costs were less, at about $6.1 million and $5.3 million, respectively. The incremental cost-utility ratio varied from $36 981/QALY for triennial screening in women aged 50-69 versus no screening to $38 142/QALY for biennial screening in those aged 50-69 and $83 845/QALY for annual screening in those aged 40-74.
interpretationOur economic analysis showed that both benefits of mortality reduction and costs rose together linearly with the number of lifetime screens per women. The decision on how to screen is related mainly to willingness to pay and additional considerations such as the number of women recalled after a positive screening result.
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.