ArticleCost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E2010
Prevention, screening and treatment of colorectal cancer: a global and regional generalized cost effectiveness analysis.
Article in Cost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- A systematic review of whole disease models for informing healthcare resource allocation decisions.PloS one · 2023Pooled it
- Disparities in the incidence, mortality and disability-adjusted life years of 33 early-onset cancer groups globally, 2012-2021: a systematic analysis.Experimental hematology & oncology · 2025Article
- Enhanced cytotoxic effect of doxorubicin conjugated gold nanoparticles on breast cancer model.BMC chemistry · 2022Article
- Clinical pattern and drug-related problems among colorectal cancer patients at oncology center in Ethiopia: A hospital-based study.SAGE open medicine · 2022Article
- Life Beyond 65: Changing Spatial Patterns of Survival at Older Ages in the United States, 2000-2016.The journals of gerontology. Series B, Psychological sciences and social sciences · 2020Article
- Cannabis, One Health, and Veterinary Medicine: Cannabinoids' Role in Public Health, Food Safety, and Translational Medicine.Rambam Maimonides medical journal · 2020Review
- Rising geographic inequality in mortality in the United States.SSM - population health · 2019Article
- An enrichment model using regular health examination data for early detection of colorectal cancer.Chinese journal of cancer research = Chung-kuo yen cheng yen chiu · 2019Article
- Is Colorectal Cancer Screening Appropriate in Nigeria?Journal of global oncology · 2019Review
- Synthesis, characterization, biological evaluation and molecular docking studies of 2-(1H-benzo[d]imidazol-2-ylthio)-N-(substituted 4-oxothiazolidin-3-yl) acetamides.Chemistry Central journal · 2017Article
- Molecular stool testing as an alternative for surveillance colonoscopy: a cross-sectional cohort study.BMC cancer · 2017Observational
- Cost Effectiveness of Screening Colonoscopy Depends on Adequate Bowel Preparation Rates - A Modeling Study.PloS one · 2016Article
- Cost effectiveness of strategies to combat breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer in sub-Saharan Africa and South East Asia: mathematical modelling study.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2012Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRegional generalized cost-effectiveness estimates of prevention, screening and treatment interventions for colorectal cancer are presented.
methodsStandardised WHO-CHOICE methodology was used. A colorectal cancer model was employed to provide estimates of screening and treatment effectiveness. Intervention effectiveness was determined via a population state-transition model (PopMod) that simulates the evolution of a sub-regional population accounting for births, deaths and disease epidemiology. Economic costs of procedures and treatment were estimated, including programme overhead and training costs.
resultsIn regions characterised by high income, low mortality and high existing treatment coverage, the addition of screening to the current high treatment levels is very cost-effective, although no particular intervention stands out in cost-effectiveness terms relative to the others.In regions characterised by low income, low mortality with existing treatment coverage around 50%, expanding treatment with or without screening is cost-effective or very cost-effective. Abandoning treatment in favour of screening (no treatment scenario) would not be cost effective.In regions characterised by low income, high mortality and low treatment levels, the most cost-effective intervention is expanding treatment.
conclusionsFrom a cost-effectiveness standpoint, screening programmes should be expanded in developed regions and treatment programmes should be established for colorectal cancer in regions with low treatment coverage.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.