Impact of increasing papanicolaou test sensitivity and compliance: A modeled cost and outcomes analysis

Obstetrics and Gynecology

Volumn 97, Issue 5, 2001, Pages 781-788

  Montz, F J ^a   Farber, Fredric l ^a   Bristow, Robert e ^a   Cornelison, Terri ^a  

^a JOHNS HOPKINS HOSPITAL   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGE DISTRIBUTION; AGED; ARTICLE; COHORT ANALYSIS; COMPUTER SIMULATION; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; ECONOMICS; FEMALE; HEALTH SURVEY; HUMAN; MIDDLE AGED; PATIENT COMPLIANCE; RISK ASSESSMENT; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; STATISTICAL MODEL; STATISTICS; TREATMENT OUTCOME; UNITED STATES; UTERINE CERVIX TUMOR; VAGINA SMEAR;

ADULT; AGE DISTRIBUTION; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; COHORT STUDIES; COMPUTER SIMULATION; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; FEMALE; HUMANS; LINEAR MODELS; MIDDLE AGED; MODELS, ECONOMIC; OUTCOME AND PROCESS ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); PATIENT COMPLIANCE; POPULATION SURVEILLANCE; RISK ASSESSMENT; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; UNITED STATES; UTERINE CERVICAL NEOPLASMS; VAGINAL SMEARS;

EID: 0035348290     PISSN: 00297844     EISSN: 1873233X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/00006250-200105000-00026     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. National Cancer Institute. Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Cancer Statistics Review, 1973-1995: Tables and graphs. Bethesda, MD: National Cancer Institute, 1998.
2. National Institutes of Health. Consensus Statement 1996;43:1-38. Available from the National Institutes of Health via the Internet. Accessed 2000 Jan 17.
3. United States Department of Health and Human Services. Healthy People 2000 Review. Washington, DC: Department of Health and Human Services, 1997.
4. Centers for Disease Control and the National Institutes of Health. Healthy People 2010 Conference Edition. Available from the Center for Disease Control via the Internet. Accessed 2000 Feb 29.
5. United States Department of Health and Human Services. The National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program, At-A-Glance. Washington, DC: United States Department of Health and Human Services, 1999.
6. Blackman DK, Bennett EM, Miller DS. Trends in self-reported use of mammograms (1984-1997) and Papanicolaou tests (1991-1997). Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. October 8, 1999. MMWR CDC Surveill Summ 1999;48:10-22.
7. Ackermann SP, Brackbill RM, Bewerse BA, Cheal NE, Sanderson LM. Cancer screening behaviors among U.S. women: Breast cancer, 1987-1989, and cervical cancer, 1988-1989. MMWR CDC Surveill Summ 1992;41:17-25.
8. Harlan LC, Bernstein AB, Kessler LG. Cervical cancer screening: Who is screened and why? Am J Pub Health 1991;81:885-90.
9. Agency for Health Care Policy and Research. Evidence Report/Technology Assessment. Number 5. Rockville, MD: Agency for Health Care Policy and Research, 1999.
10. United States Food and Drug Administration Center for Devices and Radiological Health. Database of releasable premarket approval applications. Available from the United States Food and Drug Administration via the Internet. Accessed 2000 Feb 29.
11. Hutchinson ML, Berger BM, Farber FL. Clinical and cost implications of new technologies for cervical cancer screening—The impact of test sensitivity. Am J Manag Care 2000;6:766-800.
12. National Center for Health Statistics. Division of Vital Statistics. Table 250. Washington, DC: National Center for Health Statistics, 1999.
13. Lepine LA, Hillis SD, Marchbanks PA, et al. Hysterectomy surveillance—United States, 1980-1993. MMRW CDC Surveill Summ 1997;46:1-15.
14. Reid R, Fu YS. In: Peto R, Zur Hausen H, eds. Banbury Report 21: Viral etiology of cervical cancer. Cold Spring Harbor, NY, 1986:100,117.
15. DeMay RM. The art and science of exfoliative cytopathology; exfoliative cytology. Chicago, IL: American Society of Cyto Pathologists Press, 1996:74-83.
16. Eddy DM. Screening for cervical cancer. Ann Intern Med 1990;113:214-26.
17. Gustafsson L, Pontén J, Zack M, Adami H. International incidence rates of invasive cervical cancer after introduction of cytological screening. Cancer Causes Control 1997;8:755-63.
18. American Medical Association. Physician's Current Procedural Terminology CPT'96. Chicago, IL: American Medical Association, 1995:9-10, 206, 208, 333, 327.
19. Practice Management Information Corporation. Physician fees: A comprehensive guide for fee schedule review and management. Los Angeles, CA: Practice Management Information Corporation, 1997:184-5, 346, 348, 388.
20. Brown AD, Garber AM. Cost-effectiveness of three methods to enhance the sensitivity of Papanicolaou testing. JAMA 1999;281:347-53.
21. Raab SS. The cost-effectiveness of cervical-vaginal rescreening. Anat Path 1997;108:525-36.
22. Soler ME, Blumenthal PD. New technologies in cervical cancer precursor detection. Curr Opin Oncol 2000;12:460-5.
23. Kerlikowske K, Grady D, Rubin SM, Sandrock C, Ernster VL. Efficacy of screening mammography. A meta-analysis. JAMA 1995;273:149-54.
24. Hendrick RE, Smith RA, Rutledge JH, Smart CR. Benefit of screening mammography in women ages 40-49: A new meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Nat Cancer Inst 1997; 22:87-92.