ReviewCancers2025
A Systematic Review of the Cost-Effectiveness of Screening Modalities for Breast Cancer in European Countries.
Review in Cancers, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Assessment of Potentially Unnecessary Breast Magnetic Resonance Imaging Utilization and Its Economic Impact: A Retrospective Study.The Eurasian journal of medicine · 2026Article
- Optimising screening intervals and BI-RADS management pathways in ultrasound-based breast cancer screening: real-world evidence from Shenzhen (2018-2023).Breast cancer research and treatment · 2026Article
- Cost-effectiveness analysis of combined immunotherapy regimens for non-squamous non-small lung cancer after tyrosine kinase inhibitors resistance.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Economic evaluation of school scoliosis screening in Gannan Tibetan autonomous prefecture, Gansu Province: a cost-utility analysis based on decision tree-Markov model.Frontiers in public health · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBreast cancer remains the most diagnosed cancer in European countries, with diverse screening modalities requiring economic evaluation for optimal resource allocation. This systematic review evaluated the cost-effectiveness of breast cancer screening strategies across European healthcare contexts.
methodsWe conducted a comprehensive search across PubMed, ScienceDirect, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and Google Scholar following PRISMA guidelines (1990-2024). Studies were evaluated using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist. Economic standardization employed healthcare-specific inflation indices and purchasing power parity adjustments, with costs converted to 2020 EUR.
resultsFrom 1449 studies, 23 met inclusion criteria, with significant geographic imbalance (74% from North-Western/Central Europe, 4% from South-Eastern Europe). Mammography screening for women aged 50-69 years demonstrated consistent cost-effectiveness (EUR 3000-8000 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY)) with high confidence. For women under 50, screening showed substantially higher costs (EUR 105,000 per year of life saved). Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) screening showed cost-effectiveness for high-risk populations (EUR 18,201-33,534 per QALY) with moderate confidence.
conclusionsBiennial mammography screening for women aged 50-69 demonstrates consistent cost-effectiveness across European contexts. Findings have highest applicability to North-Western and Central European healthcare systems, with limited generalizability to Southern and Eastern Europe due to evidence gaps.
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.