ArticleBMC public health2025
Comparing the cost-benefit of breast cancer screening programs in rural and urban areas across four economic zones in China: a Markov modeling analysis.
Article in BMC public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline 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
- A cost-effective breast cancer screening strategy for Urban China: Findings from a Shenzhen-based modeling study.PloS one · 2026Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study assessed the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of breast cancer screening across rural and urban regions in China's four economic zones.
methodsUsing a decision-analytic Markov model, we evaluated 5,280 scenarios involving different ages and screening technologies. The model followed individuals from birth through 100 yearly cycles in eight settings. Model parameters, such as incidence, transition rate, attendance and compliance rate, screening accuracy, utility, and mortality, were based on Chinese research and international data. Screening costs were calculated using median medical costs in the respective zones. The main outcome measured was incremental net benefit (INB) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), with sensitivity analyses to assess uncertainty.
resultsUsing a willingness-to-pay threshold of three times the local per capita Gross domestic product (GDP), the recommended strategies varied across regions. However, annual screening of individuals aged 30-70 years with a combination of mammography (MAM) and computed tomography laser mammography (CTL) was the most cost-effective strategy for most regions. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of the most cost-effective strategies, compared to no intervention and status quo in China, ranged from US$5,173.31/QALY to US$18,551.27/QALY, and from US$-3,872.28 to US$17,804.59, respectively. Except for the rural central region, where the cost-effective strategy had suboptimal outcomes compared to status quo, the recommended strategies in the other seven regions could prevent 41.12-58.80% and 8.08-35.39% of advanced breast cancer cases, and 18.83-29.27% and 2.71-14.06% of breast cancer deaths, when compared to no screening and status quo, respectively. Sensitivity analysis indicated that the results were robust.
conclusionOur study identified cost-effective breast cancer screening strategies suitable for the rural and urban areas in China's four major economic zones. These findings highlight the necessity of universal screening and the importance of optimizing strategies based on regional economic development and epidemiological characteristics. These insights are crucial for improving national breast cancer screening policies.
Indexed as
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.