An alternative cost effectiveness analysis of ThinPrep in the Australian setting

Australian and New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology

Volumn 45, Issue 4, 2005, Pages 289-294

  Neville, A Munro ^a   Quinn, Michael A ^b  

^a Pretium   (Australia)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE   (Australia)

Author keywords

Cervical histology; Cost benefit analysis; Cytology; Pap smear; ThinPrep

Indexed keywords

AUSTRALIA; CONTROLLED STUDY; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; CYTOLOGY; FEMALE; HEALTH CARE DELIVERY; HEALTH CARE SYSTEM; HEALTH ECONOMICS; HIGH RISK POPULATION; HUMAN; MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY; MEDICARE; PAPANICOLAOU TEST; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PUBLIC HEALTH; REVIEW; SCREENING TEST; UTERINE CERVIX CANCER;

AUSTRALIA; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; FEMALE; HEALTH CARE COSTS; HUMANS; MODELS, ECONOMIC; MONTE CARLO METHOD; NATIONAL HEALTH PROGRAMS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; UTERINE CERVICAL NEOPLASMS; VAGINAL SMEARS;

EID: 23744481728     PISSN: 00048666     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1479-828X.2005.00413.x     Document Type: Review

References (13)

1. Independent Review Mechanism. [Internet]. Australia - United States Free Trade Agreement (AUSFTA). Implementation of the Obligations to Improve Transparency of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) through an Independent Review Mechanism, Hearings before the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC) and Transparency of Decision Making, Public Consultation Document. [Accessed August 2004]. Available from URL: http://www.health.gov.au/mediarel/yr2004/ta/ abb121.pdf.
2. Ware RE, Francis HW, Read KR. Government's review of positron emission tomography: evidence-based policy-making in action. MJA. 2004; 180: 627-632.
3. Medical Services Advisory Committee. Liquid based cytology for cervical screening, MSAC Reference 12a, Assessment report. Canberra: Commonwealth Department of Human Services and Health, 2002.
4. Roberts JM, Gurley AM, Thurloe JK, Bowditch R, Laverty CR. Evaluation of the ThinPrep Pap test as an adjunct to the conventional Pap smear. Med J Australia. 1997; 167: 466-469.
5. Limaye A, Connor AJ, Huang X, Luff R. Comparative analysis of conventional Papanicolaou tests and a fluid-based thin-layer method. Arch Pathol Lap Med. 127: 2003.
6. Colgan TJ. Programmatic assessments of the clinical effectiveness of gynecologic liquid-based cytology, The Ayes Have it, Cancer Cytopathology. 2003; 99: 259-262.
7. National Institute for Clinical Excellence (2003). Guidance on the use of liquid-based cytology for cervical screening. Technology Appraisal 69. UK: NICE.
8. Abulafia O, Pezzullo JC, Sherer DM. Performance of ThinPrep liquid-based cervical cytology in comparison with conventionally prepared Papanicolaou smears: a quantitative survey. Gynecologic Oncol. 2003; 90: 137-144.
9. Melnikow J, Nuovo J. Persistently high loads of human papillomavirus 16 times over time were associated with an increased risk of cervical cancer. ACP J Club. 2001; 134: 34.
10. Australian Institute of Health & Welfare. Cervical Screening in Australia 1997-98. AIHW Cat. No. CAN9 (Cancer Series number 14). Canberra: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 2000.
11. Medical Services Advisory Committee. Funding for new medical technologies and procedures: application and assessment guidelines. Canberra: Commonwealth Department of Human Services and Health, 2000.
12. Farnsworth A. Liquid-based cytology: an Australian experience. Cytopathology 2003; 14.
13. Pap guidelines 'dangerous', Expert resigns, blasts advice on low-grade smears, Australian Doctor, August 2004.