Cited by 71Cervical Cancer and HPV ResearchWomen's cancer prevention and managementGlobal Cancer Incidence and Screening

Screening for cervical cancer in India: How much will it cost? A trial based analysis of the cost per case detected

Open access
Legood, Rosa, Gray, Alastair M., Mahé, Cedric, Wolstenholme, Jane, Jayant, Kasturi, Nene, Bhagwan M., Shastri, Surendra S., Malvi, Sylla G. +3 more·2005·International Journal of Cancer

Abstract

The cost and cost effectiveness of screening previously unscreened women by VIA, cytology or HPV testing was investigated within a large cluster randomised trial involving 131,178 women in rural India. All resources involved in implementation, training, management, recruitment, screening and diagnosis were identified and costed. We estimated the total costs and detection rates for each cluster and used these data to calculate an average cluster cost and detection rate for each screening approach. These estimates were combined to estimate a cost per case of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2/3 or invasive cancer (CIN 2/3+) detected. The average total costs per 1,000 women eligible for screening were US$3,917, US$6,609 and US$11,779 with VIA, cytology and HPV respectively. The cost of detecting a case of CIN2/3+ using VIA was $522 (95% CI $429–$652). Our results suggest that more CIN2/3+ cases would be detected in the same population if cytology were used instead of VIA and each additional case would cost US$1065 (95% CI $713–$2175). Delivering cervical cancer screening is potentially expensive in a low‐income country although costs might be lower outside a trial setting. We found screening with VIA to be the least expensive option, but it also detected fewer cases of CIN2/3+ than other methods; its long‐term cost‐effectiveness will depend on the long‐term benefits of early detection. Cytology was more effective at detecting cases than VIA but was also more expensive. Our findings indicate that HPV may not be a cost effective screening strategy in India at current consumable prices. © 2005 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/ijc.21220

Cites

10 of 10 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The cost per woman screened using different methods estimated in this study are very similar in terms of extent and pattern to a previous study conducted by Legood et al in 2005.

    “The cost per women screened using different methods estimated by us are very similar in terms of the extent and pattern to a previous study conducted by Legood et al in 2005 (S1 File of S6 Table). [44–46]”

    From Cost effectiveness of strategies for cervical cancer prevention in India (2020) · cites this paper as [44]

    The Costs section reports the pattern across methods: VIA was least expensive, followed by cytology, then HPV. But its reported totals are per 1,000 women eligible for screening, not per woman screened. The source therefore supports the comparison of methods’ cost pattern, but not the claimed similarity in per-woman-screened costs. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Briggs A, Wonderling DE, Mooney CZ. Pulling cost-effectiveness up by its bootstraps: a non-parametric approach to confidence interval estimation. Health Economics 1997;6:327-40.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Legood, R., Gray, A. M., Mahé, C., Wolstenholme, J., Jayant, K., Nene, B. M., Shastri, S. S., Malvi, S. G., Muwonge, R., Budukh, A. M., & Sankaranarayanan, R.
Affiliations
  • University of Oxford (GB)
  • Tata Memorial Hospital (IN)
  • Centre international de recherche sur le cancer (FR)
Corresponding author
Legood, Rosa
Venue
International Journal of Cancer
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2005-07-07
Volume
117
Issue
6
Pages
981-987
ISSN
  • 0020-7136 (ISSN-L)
  • 1097-0215
OpenAlex
W2068199759
Cited by
71
References
10
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 4 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 6
FWCI
3.36
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • International Journal of Cancer (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Cervical Cancer and HPV Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Women's cancer prevention and management
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Global Cancer Incidence and Screening
Keywords
cervical cancer screening, cost per case detected, visual inspection with acetic acid, Pap smear cytology, HPV testing, cervical intraepithelial neoplasia, cost-effectiveness, rural women, low-income countries, India
MeSH terms
Adult, Biopsy, Uterine Cervical Dysplasia, Uterine Cervical Neoplasms, Cervix Uteri, Colposcopy, Cost-Benefit Analysis, Costs and Cost Analysis, Cytodiagnosis, Female, Humans, India, Laboratories, Mass Screening, Middle Aged, Rural Population, Papillomaviridae

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review