Table 1.

 Model inputs: variables that were varied between scenarios, and values considered. Values are percentages unless stated otherwise

Variables	Alternative values
Background risk of cervical cancer mortality	5.0/7.5/10 per 100 000
Past screening (cytology)	Yes/No
Sensitivity (probability of at least ASCUS) of cytology for CIN grade25:
CIN grade I	40/32
CIN grade II	50/40
CIN grade III or worse	75/60
Probability of at least HSIL for CIN grades:
CIN grade I	4/3
CIN grade II	19/15
CIN grade III or worse	47/38
Specificity of cytology (for CIN grade I or worse)	97/98.5
Sensitivity of HPV test (for high risk HPV infection)24	90/95
Prevalence of HPV in CIN grade I or less*	Low/High
Laboratory costs (€) HPV screening	21/33
Total cost (€) cytology	26/52
Threshold value (€) for cost effectiveness	20 000/30 000/50 000 per QALY gained

€1.00 (£0.84; $1.31).

See table 2 for rounded up values for laboratory costs of screening and total cost of cytology.

ASCUS=atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance; CIN=cervical intraepithelial neoplasia; HSIL=high grade squamous intraepithelial lesion; QALY=quality adjusted life year.

*Depends on background risk of cervical cancer mortality. On top of increased HPV prevalence associated with a higher background risk, to account for the possibility of a country with a high prevalence of HPV, the number of women with a positive HPV test result and without cytological abnormalities was multiplied by a factor of 2. If the background risk was 5 deaths per 100 000 life years, the mean prevalence of HPV in the total population would be 6% in the case of high prevalence and 3% in the case of low prevalence; if the background risk was 7.5 deaths per 100 000 life years, the mean prevalence in the total population would be 8% or 4%; and if the background risk was 10 deaths per 100 000 life years, the mean prevalence in the total population would be 10% or 5%.