Evidence mapPaperPMID 35837900Full record

SynthesisJournal of global health2022

Economic evaluations of mammography to screen for breast cancer in low- and middle-income countries: A systematic review.

Ajeng V Icanervilia, Jurjen van der Schans, Qi Cao, Adriana C de Carvalho, Kathya Cordova-Pozo, Jarir At Thobari, Maarten J Postma, Antoinette DI van Asselt

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of global health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Ajeng V IcanerviliaDepartment of Health Sciences, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands.
Jurjen van der SchansDepartment of Health Sciences, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands.
Qi CaoDepartment of Health Sciences, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands.
Adriana C de CarvalhoRegenerative Medicine Center Utrecht, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Kathya Cordova-PozoDepartment of Health Sciences, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands.
Jarir At ThobariClinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics Unit (CEBU), Faculty of Medicine, Public Health and Nursing, Universitas Gadjah Mada, Yogyakarta, Indonesia.
Maarten J PostmaDepartment of Health Sciences, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands.
Antoinette DI van AsseltDepartment of Health Sciences, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) have limited resources compared to high-income countries (HICs). Therefore, it is critical that LMICs implement cost-effective strategies to reduce the burden of breast cancer. This study aimed to answer the question of whether mammography is a cost-effective breast cancer screening method in LMICs. Methods: A systematic article search was conducted through Medline, Embase, Web of Science, and Econlit. Studies were included only if they conducted a full economic evaluation and focused on mammography screening in LMICs. Two reviewers screened through the title and abstract of each article and continued with full-text selection. Data were extracted and synthesized narratively. Quality assessment for each included study was conducted using the Consensus Health Economic Criteria (CHEC) extended checklist. Results: This review identified 21 studies economically evaluating mammography as a breast cancer screening method in LMICs. Eighteen of these studies concluded that mammography screening was a cost-effective strategy. Most studies (71%) were conducted in upper-middle-income countries (Upper MICs). The quality of the studies varied from low to good. Important factors determining cost-effectiveness are the target age group (eg, 50-59 years), the screening interval (eg, biennial or triennial), as well as any combination with other breast cancer control strategies (eg, combination with treatment strategy for breast cancer patients). Conclusions: Mammography screening appeared to be a cost-effective strategy in LMICs, particularly in Upper MICs. More studies conducted in lower-middle-income and low-income countries are needed to better understand the cost-effectiveness of mammography screening in these regions.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsDeveloping CountriesCost-Benefit AnalysisFemaleHumansMammographyMass ScreeningMiddle Aged

Identifiers

PMID35837900
PMCPMC9284087

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.