Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19034277›Full record

ArticleBritish journal of cancer2008

Population screening for colorectal cancer: the implications of an ageing population.

D A L Macafee, M Waller, D K Whynes, S Moss, J H Scholefield

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in British journal of cancer, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 29% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 25 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Simulation modeling validity and utility in colorectal cancer screening delivery: A systematic review.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2020
    Pooled it
  3. Non-physician endoscopists: A systematic review.World journal of gastroenterology · 2015
    Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Cost-effectiveness Analysis of Colorectal Cancer Screening Strategies Using Active Learning and Monte Carlo Simulation.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2024
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Cost-effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening - an overview.Best practice & research. Clinical gastroenterology · 2010
    Article
  14. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

D A L MacafeeDepartment of Surgery, Royal Victoria Infirmary, Newcastle-upon, Tyne NE1 4LP, UK. dmacafee@doctors.org.uk
M Waller
D K Whynes
S Moss
J H Scholefield
Institute of Cancer Research · GBQueen's Medical Centre · GBRoyal Victoria Infirmary · GBUniversity of Nottingham · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Population screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) has recently commenced in the United Kingdom supported by the evidence of a number of randomised trials and pilot studies. Certain factors are known to influence screening cost-effectiveness (e.g. compliance), but it remains unclear whether an ageing population (i.e. demographic change) might also have an effect. The aim of this study was to simulate a population-based screening setting using a Markov model and assess the effect of increasing life expectancy on CRC screening cost-effectiveness. A Markov model was constructed that aimed, using a cohort simulation, to estimate the cost-effectiveness of CRC screening in an England and Wales population for two timescales: 2003 (early cohort) and 2033 (late cohort). Four model outcomes were calculated; screened and non-screened cohorts in 2003 and 2033. The screened cohort of men and women aged 60 years were offered biennial unhydrated faecal occult blood testing until the age of 69 years. Life expectancy was assumed to increase by 2.5 years per decade. There were 407 552 fewer people entering the model in the 2033 model due to a lower birth cohort, and population screening saw 30 345 fewer CRC-related deaths over the 50 years of the model. Screening the 2033 cohort cost pound 96 million with cost savings of pound 43 million in terms of detection and treatment and pound 28 million in palliative care costs. After 30 years of follow-up, the cost per life year saved was pound 1544. An identical screening programme in an early cohort (2003) saw a cost per life year saved of pound 1651. Population screening for CRC is costly but enables cost savings in certain areas and a considerable reduction in mortality from CRC. This Markov simulation suggests that the cost-effectiveness of population screening for CRC in the United Kingdom may actually be improved by rising life expectancies.

Indexed as

AgedColorectal NeoplasmsDisease ProgressionFollow-Up StudiesHumansLife ExpectancyMass ScreeningMiddle AgedNeoplasm StagingRisk FactorsTime Factors

Identifiers

PMID19034277
PMCPMC2607219
OpenAlexW1975164269

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.