ArticleThe European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care2014
The influence of waiting times on cost-effectiveness: a case study of colorectal cancer mass screening.
Article in The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Simulation modeling validity and utility in colorectal cancer screening delivery: A systematic review.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2020Pooled it
- Patient Navigation After Positive Fecal Immunochemical Test Results Increases Diagnostic Colonoscopy and Highlights Multilevel Barriers to Follow-Up.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2021Article
- Implementing a multilevel intervention to accelerate colorectal cancer screening and follow-up in federally qualified health centers using a stepped wedge design: a study protocol.Implementation science : IS · 2020Article
- Patients without colonoscopic follow-up after abnormal fecal immunochemical tests are often unaware of the abnormal result and report several barriers to colonoscopy.BMC gastroenterology · 2020Article
- The impact of waiting for intervention on costs and effectiveness: the case of transcatheter aortic valve replacement.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
When a cost-effectiveness analysis is implemented, the health-care system is usually assumed to adjust smoothly to the proposed new strategy. However, technological innovations in health care may often induce friction in the organization of care supply, implying the congestion of services and subsequent waiting times. Our objective here is to measure how these short run rigidities can challenge cost-effectiveness recommendations favorable to an innovative mass screening test for colorectal cancer. Using Markov modeling, we compare the standard Guaiac fecal occult blood test (gFOBT) with an innovative screening test for colorectal cancer, namely the immunological fecal occult blood test (iFOBT). Waiting time can occur between a positive screening test and the subsequent confirmation colonoscopy. Five scenarios are considered for iFOBT: no further waiting time compared with gFOBT, twice as much waiting time for a period of 5 or 10 years, and twice as much waiting time for a period of 5 or 10 years combined with a 25% decrease in participation to confirmation colonoscopies. According to our modeling, compared with gFOBT, iFOBT would approximately double colonoscopy demand. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis enables concluding that the waiting time significantly increases the uncertainty surrounding recommendations favorable to iFOBT if it induces a decrease in the adherence rate for confirmation colonoscopy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
23974962What 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.