Table 1 Parameters used in this study
From: Optimizing strategy for cervical cancer prevention in china: a comprehensive modeling analysis
Parameters | Base-case | Range (distribution) | References |
|---|---|---|---|
Transition of Markov model | |||
 Healthy | |||
  To HPV (all age) | 1.77% |  ± 20% (beta) | Petca (2020) [27] |
  To HPV (20–59) | 63.49% × infection rate | HPV center (2024) [20] and model validation | |
 HPV | |||
  To Healthy | Age-specific |  ± 20% (beta) | Kang (2014) [25] |
  To CIN | 0.30% | Zhao (2012) [26] | |
 CIN | |||
  To Healthy | 0.03% |  ± 20% (beta) | Zhao (2020) [30] |
  To HPV | 4.98% | ||
  To CC | 2.22% | ||
Sensitivity | |||
 PAP | 40.00% |  ± 20% (beta) | Zou (2020) [10] |
 VIA | 58.00% | ||
 HC-2 | 92.00% | ||
 CareHPV | 86.00% | ||
 LBC | 82.00% | ||
 p16 | 91.50% | Song (2021) [31] | |
Specificity | |||
 PAP | 91.00% |  ± 20% (beta) | Zou (2020) [10] |
 VIA | 86.00% | ||
 HC-2 | 83.00% | ||
 CareHPV | 86.00% | ||
 LBC | 96.00% | ||
 p16 | 71.30% | Song (2021) [31] | |
Effectiveness of vaccination | |||
 2v | 64.95% |  ± 20% (beta) | HPV center (2024) [20] and Zhu (2014) [23] and Zhu (2023) [11] |
 9v | 92.60% | ||
Cost, USD | |||
 Treatment of CIN | 161.92 |  ± 20% (gamma) | Zou (2020) [10] |
 Annual treatment of CC | 798.00 | Ding (2021) [32] | |
 2v (full vaccination) | 95.41 | Menet (2024) [33] | |
 9v (full vaccination) | 213.52 | ||
 PAP | 6.60 | Zou (2020) [10] | |
 VIA | 2.50 | ||
 HC-2 | 48.60 | ||
 CareHPV | 10.35 | Liu (2016) [34] | |
 LBC | 26.00 | Zou (2020) [10] | |
 p16 | 26.00 | Medical Service Price Items in Jilin Province (2024) [35] | |
 Colposcopy | 5.90 | Zou (2020) [10] | |
 Biopsy | 16.40 | ||
Utility, QALYs | |||
 Healthy | 1.00 |  ± 20% (beta) | Zhao (2020) [30] |
 HPV | 1.00 | ||
 CIN | 0.88 | ||
 CIN cured | 0.98 | ||
 CC | 0.72 | ||
 CC T | 0.72 | ||
 Misdiagnosis of pre-screening | − 0.001 |  ± 20% (uniform) | Peron (2018) [28] |