Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25998922›Full record

Trial reportAmerican journal of preventive medicine2015

An economic evaluation of colorectal cancer screening in primary care practice.

Richard T Meenan, Melissa L Anderson, Jessica Chubak, Sally W Vernon, Sharon Fuller, Ching-Yun Wang, Beverly B Green

Registry-linked trialAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in American journal of preventive medicine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT00697047 (Systems of Support to Increase Colon Cancer Screening and Follow-up), which is not on this map. Cited by 19 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 4 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.

NCT00697047 nacompletednot on this map

Systems of Support to Increase Colon Cancer Screening and Follow-up

TypeinterventionalSponsorKaiser PermanenteRan2008 to 2019Enrolled4,653ConditionsColorectal CancerArmsAutomated Mailing, Automated Mailing Plus Assisted, Auto Plus Assisted Plus Navigation
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

19 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Economic Evaluations Informed Exclusively by Real World Data: A Systematic Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. 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

7 authors.

Richard T MeenanKaiser Permanente Center for Health Research, Portland, Oregon. Electronic address: richard.meenan@kpchr.org.
Melissa L AndersonGroup Health Research Institute, Seattle, Washington.
Jessica ChubakGroup Health Research Institute, Seattle, Washington.
Sally W VernonUniversity of Texas School of Public Health, Houston, Texas.
Sharon FullerGroup Health Research Institute, Seattle, Washington.
Ching-Yun WangFred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, Washington.
Beverly B GreenGroup Health Research Institute, Seattle, Washington.

Funding

Systems of Support (SOS) to Increase Colon Cancer Screening and Follow-upR01CA121125 · NCI · KAISER FOUNDATION RESEARCH INSTITUTE · PI GREEN, BEVERLY BETH · 2007 to 2017
$8.0M
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA121125
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionRecent colorectal cancer screening studies focus on optimizing adherence. This study evaluated the cost effectiveness of interventions using electronic health records (EHRs); automated mailings; and stepped support increases to improve 2-year colorectal cancer screening adherence.

methodsAnalyses were based on a parallel-design, randomized trial in which three stepped interventions (EHR-linked mailings ["automated"]; automated plus telephone assistance ["assisted"]; or automated and assisted plus nurse navigation to testing completion or refusal [navigated"]) were compared to usual care. Data were from August 2008 to November 2011, with analyses performed during 2012-2013. Implementation resources were micro-costed; research and registry development costs were excluded. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were based on number of participants current for screening per guidelines over 2 years. Bootstrapping examined robustness of results.

resultsIntervention delivery cost per participant current for screening ranged from $21 (automated) to $27 (navigated). Inclusion of induced testing costs (e.g., screening colonoscopy) lowered expenditures for automated (ICER=-$159) and assisted (ICER=-$36) relative to usual care over 2 years. Savings arose from increased fecal occult blood testing, substituting for more expensive colonoscopies in usual care. Results were broadly consistent across demographic subgroups. More intensive interventions were consistently likely to be cost effective relative to less intensive interventions, with willingness to pay values of $600-$1,200 for an additional person current for screening yielding ≥80% probability of cost effectiveness.

conclusionsTwo-year cost effectiveness of a stepped approach to colorectal cancer screening promotion based on EHR data is indicated, but longer-term cost effectiveness requires further study.

Indexed as

Primary Health CareAgedColorectal NeoplasmsCost-Benefit AnalysisEarly Detection of CancerElectronic Health RecordsFemaleHumansMass ScreeningMiddle AgedOccult BloodReminder Systems

Identifiers

PMID25998922
PMCPMC4441758

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

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.