Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21633092›Full record

ReviewEpidemiologic reviews2011

Cost-effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening.

Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar, Amy B Knudsen, Hermann Brenner

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Epidemiologic reviews, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 125 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
125citing papers in PubMed, 8 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

125 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Guideline
  7. Pooled it
  8. Risk Prediction Models for Colorectal Cancer: A Systematic Review.Cancer prevention research (Philadelphia, Pa.) · 2016
    Pooled it
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Should Screening Colonoscopy Be Offered From Age 50?Deutsches Arzteblatt international · 2017
    Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

65 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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.

Iris Lansdorp-VogelaarDepartment of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center, PO Box 2040, 3000 CA Rotterdam, the Netherlands. i.vogelaar@erasmusmc.nl
Amy B Knudsen
Hermann Brenner

Funding

A POPULATION-BASED POLICY MODEL FOR COLORECTAL CANCERU01CA088204 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA · PI KUNTZ, KAREN M · 2000 to 2010
$2.4M
Modeling Effective Health Policies for Colorectal CancerU01CA097426 · NCI · SLOAN-KETTERING INSTITUTE FOR CANCER RES · PI ZAUBER, ANN GRAHAM · 2002 to 2010
$2.2M
Coordinating Center for Colorectal MicrosimulationU01CA115953 · NCI · SLOAN-KETTERING INSTITUTE FOR CANCER RES · PI ZAUBER, ANN GRAHAM · 2005 to 2009
$1.1M
NCI NIH HHS U01 CA088204NCI NIH HHS U01-CA-088204NCI NIH HHS U01 CA097426NCI NIH HHS U01-CA-097426NCI NIH HHS U01 CA115953NCI NIH HHS U01-CA-115953
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Colorectal cancer is an important public health problem. Several screening methods have been shown to be effective in reducing colorectal cancer mortality. The objective of this review was to assess the cost-effectiveness of the different colorectal cancer screening methods and to determine the preferred method from a cost-effectiveness point of view. Five databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry, the British National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database, and the lists of technology assessments of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services) were searched for cost-effectiveness analyses published in English between January 1993 and December 2009. Fifty-five publications relating to 32 unique cost-effectiveness models were identified. All studies found that colorectal cancer screening was cost-effective or even cost-saving compared with no screening. However, the studies disagreed as to which screening method was most effective or had the best incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for a given willingness to pay per life-year gained. There was agreement among studies that the newly developed screening tests of stool DNA testing, computed tomographic colonography, and capsule endoscopy were not yet cost-effective compared with the established screening options.

Indexed as

ColonoscopyColorectal NeoplasmsCost-Benefit AnalysisHumansMass Screening

Identifiers

PMID21633092
PMCPMC3132805

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.