ArticleGut2013
Cost-effectiveness of one versus two sample faecal immunochemical testing for colorectal cancer screening.
Article in Gut, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers, 5 of them syntheses 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
30 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- One- versus two-sample fecal immunochemical testing for colorectal cancer screening: a systematic review and meta-analysis of participation, diagnostic performance, and cost-effectiveness.BMC gastroenterology · 2026Pooled it
- The role of health economic evidence in clinical practice guidelines for colorectal cancer: a comparative analysis across countries.Journal of comparative effectiveness research · 2025Pooled it
- A Systematic Review of Cost-Effectiveness Analyses of Colorectal Cancer Screening in Europe: Have Studies Included Optimal Screening Intensities?Applied health economics and health policy · 2023Pooled it
- Cancer diagnostic tools to aid decision-making in primary care: mixed-methods systematic reviews and cost-effectiveness analysis.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2020Pooled it
- Pooled it
- An economic evaluation of colorectal cancer screening in primary care practice.American journal of preventive medicine · 2015Trial
- Participant uptake of the fecal immunochemical test decreases with the two-sample regimen compared with one-sample FIT.European journal of cancer prevention : the official journal of the European Cancer Prevention Organisation (ECP) · 2014Trial
- Article
- Interval Colorectal Cancers in a Fecal Immunochemical Test-Based Screening Program.JAMA network open · 2025Article
- Cost-Effectiveness of Colorectal Cancer Surveillance in Hodgkin Lymphoma Survivors Treated with Procarbazine and/or Infradiaphragmatic Radiotherapy.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2022Article
- Cost-effectiveness analysis of colorectal cancer screening in Shanghai, China: A modelling study.Preventive medicine reports · 2022Article
- Article
- Treatment pathways and associated costs of metastatic colorectal cancer in Greece.Cost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E · 2022Article
- Can Cost-effectiveness Analysis Inform Genotype-Guided Aspirin Use for Primary Colorectal Cancer Prevention?Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2021Article
- Article
- Detection of advanced colorectal neoplasia and relative colonoscopy workloads using quantitative faecal immunochemical tests: an observational study exploring the effects of simultaneous adjustment of both sample number and test positivity threshold.BMJ open gastroenterology · 2020Observational
- Mailed fecal immunochemical test outreach for colorectal cancer screening: Summary of a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention-sponsored Summit.CA: a cancer journal for clinicians · 2020Article
- Making FIT Count: Maximizing Appropriate Use of the Fecal Immunochemical Test for Colorectal Cancer Screening Programs.Journal of general internal medicine · 2020Article
- Balancing Adherence and Expense: The Cost-Effectiveness of Two-Sample vs One-Sample Fecal Immunochemical Test.Population health management · 2019Article
- Cost-effectiveness of High-performance Biomarker Tests vs Fecal Immunochemical Test for Noninvasive Colorectal Cancer Screening.Clinical gastroenterology and hepatology : the official clinical practice journal of the American Gastroenterological Association · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe sensitivity and specificity of a single faecal immunochemical test (FIT) are limited. The performance of FIT screening can be improved by increasing the screening frequency or by providing more than one sample in each screening round. This study aimed to evaluate if two-sample FIT screening is cost-effective compared with one-sample FIT.
designThe MISCAN-colon microsimulation model was used to estimate costs and benefits of strategies with either one or two-sample FIT screening. The FIT cut-off level varied between 50 and 200 ng haemoglobin/ml, and the screening schedule was varied with respect to age range and interval. In addition, different definitions for positivity of the two-sample FIT were considered: at least one positive sample, two positive samples, or the mean of both samples being positive.
resultsWithin an exemplary screening strategy, biennial FIT from the age of 55-75 years, one-sample FIT provided 76.0-97.0 life-years gained (LYG) per 1000 individuals, at a cost of € 259,000-264,000 (range reflects different FIT cut-off levels). Two-sample FIT screening with at least one sample being positive provided 7.3-12.4 additional LYG compared with one-sample FIT at an extra cost of € 50,000-59,000. However, when all screening intervals and age ranges were considered, intensifying screening with one-sample FIT provided equal or more LYG at lower costs compared with two-sample FIT.
conclusionIf attendance to screening does not differ between strategies it is recommended to increase the number of screening rounds with one-sample FIT screening, before considering increasing the number of FIT samples provided per screening round.
Indexed as
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.