Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20473196›Full record

Trial reportMedical care2010

Cost-effectiveness of patient mailings to promote colorectal cancer screening.

Thomas D Sequist, Calvin Franz, John Z Ayanian

Open access · greenAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Medical care, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 12% 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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 37 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Comparison of Health Communication Channels for Reaching Hispanics About Biobanking: a Pilot Trial.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2018
    Trial
  5. Patient Beliefs About Colon Cancer Screening.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2016
    Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Cost effectiveness of interventions to promote screening for colorectal cancer: a randomized trial.Journal of preventive medicine and public health = Yebang Uihakhoe chi · 2011
    Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Thomas D SequistDepartment of Health Care Policy, Harvard Medical School and Division of General Medicine and Primary Care, Brigham and Women's Hospital, 1620 Tremont Street, Boston, MA 02120, USA. tsequist@partners.org
Calvin Franz
John Z Ayanian
Harvard Vanguard Medical Associates · US

Funding

Improving Systems for Colorectal Cancer ScreeningR01CA112367 · NCI · HARVARD UNIVERSITY (MEDICAL SCHOOL) · PI AYANIAN, JOHN Z. · 2005 to 2008
$1.9M
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA112367
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPrograms to promote colorectal cancer screening are common, yet information regarding the cost-effectiveness of such efforts is limited.

objectiveTo assess the cost-effectiveness of patient mailings to increase rates of colorectal cancer screening. RESEARCH

designIncremental cost-effectiveness analysis of a randomized, controlled trial. The intervention involved 21,860 patients aged 50 to 80 years across 11 health centers overdue for colorectal cancer screening. Patients were randomized to receive a mailing that included a tailored letter, educational brochure, and fecal occult blood test kit at baseline and 6 months follow-up. MEASURES: We calculated the incremental cost-effectiveness of these mailings to promote colorectal cancer screening by fecal occult blood testing, flexible sigmoidoscopy, or colonoscopy using internal cost estimates of labor and supplies.

resultsColorectal cancer screening rates were higher for patients in the intervention compared with control patients (44% vs. 38%, P < 0.001). The total cost of the intervention was approximately $5.48 per patient, resulting in a cost-effectiveness ratio of $94 per additional patient screened. This estimate ranged from $69 to $156, based on assumptions of the cost of the intervention components, magnitude of intervention effect, age range, and size of the targeted patient population.

conclusionTailored patient mailings are a cost-effective approach to improve rates of colorectal cancer screening.

Indexed as

AgedAged, 80 and overColonoscopyColorectal NeoplasmsCost-Benefit AnalysisEarly Detection of CancerFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHealth PromotionHumansMaleMass ScreeningMiddle AgedOccult BloodOutcome Assessment, Health CarePatient Compliance

Identifiers

PMID20473196
PMCPMC3225409
OpenAlexW2026014858

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.