ArticleJAMA2015
Variation in Adenoma Detection Rate and the Lifetime Benefits and Cost of Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Microsimulation Model.
Article in JAMA, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 42 papers, 4 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
42 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Linked color imaging versus conventional white-light colonoscopy for the detection of colorectal polyps.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2025Pooled it
- Oral sulfate solution benefits polyp and adenoma detection during colonoscopy: Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Digestive endoscopy : official journal of the Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society · 2022Pooled it
- The Effect of Right Colon Retroflexion on Adenoma Detection: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Journal of clinical gastroenterology · 2017Pooled it
- Evaluation of the Effectiveness and Cost-Effectiveness of Personalized Surveillance After Colorectal Adenomatous Polypectomy.Epidemiologic reviews · 2017Pooled it
- Objective Assessment of Visibility of Colorectal Lesions Using Eye Tracking for New Image-Enhanced Endoscopy Observation.Journal of gastroenterology and hepatology · 2026Article
- Quantifying the cost savings and health impacts of improving colonoscopy quality: an economic evaluation.BMJ quality & safety · 2025Article
- Article
- Impact of racial disparities in follow-up and quality of colonoscopy on colorectal cancer outcomes.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2024Article
- Usefulness and safety of new ultrasmall-diameter colonoscope for cases with difficult insertion: a retrospective study.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Impact of a scalable training program on the quality of colonoscopy performance and risk of postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer.Gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2023Article
- Systematic analysis of the test design and performance of AI/ML-based medical devices approved for triage/detection/diagnosis in the USA and Japan.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Article
- 3 liters of polyethylene glycol vs. standard bowel preparation have equal efficacy in a Chinese population: a randomized, controlled trial.American journal of translational research · 2022Article
- Effect of antifoaming agent on benign colorectal tumors in colonoscopy: A meta-analysis.World journal of clinical cases · 2021Article
- Colonoscopy in poorly prepped colons: a cost effectiveness analysis comparing standard of care to a new cleansing technology.Cost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E · 2021Article
- Article
- Impact of simethicone on bowel cleansing during colonoscopy in Chinese patients.World journal of clinical cases · 2021Article
- Colonoscopy quality in community hospitals and nonhospital facilities in Korea.The Korean journal of internal medicine · 2021Article
- Efficacy and Patient Tolerability Profiles of Probiotic Solution with Bisacodyl Versus Conventional Cleansing Solution for Bowel Preparation: A Prospective, Randomized, Controlled Trial.Journal of clinical medicine · 2020Article
- Improved detection of colorectal adenomas by high-quality colon cleansing.Endoscopy international open · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
importanceColonoscopy is the most commonly used colorectal cancer screening test in the United States. Its quality, as measured by adenoma detection rates (ADRs), varies widely among physicians, with unknown consequences for the cost and benefits of screening programs.
objectiveTo estimate the lifetime benefits, complications, and costs of an initial colonoscopy screening program at different levels of adenoma detection. DESIGN, SETTING, AND
participantsMicrosimulation modeling with data from a community-based health care system on ADR variation and cancer risk among 57,588 patients examined by 136 physicians from 1998 through 2010. EXPOSURES: Using modeling, no screening was compared with screening initiation with colonoscopy according to ADR quintiles (averages 15.3%, quintile 1; 21.3%, quintile 2; 25.6%, quintile 3; 30.9%, quintile 4; and 38.7%, quintile 5) at ages 50, 60, and 70 years with appropriate surveillance of patients with adenoma. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Estimated lifetime colorectal cancer incidence and mortality, number of colonoscopies, complications, and costs per 1000 patients, all discounted at 3% per year and including 95% confidence intervals from multiway probabilistic sensitivity analysis.
resultsIn simulation modeling, among unscreened patients the lifetime risk of colorectal cancer incidence was 34.2 per 1000 (95% CI, 25.9-43.6) and risk of mortality was 13.4 per 1000 (95% CI, 10.0-17.6). Among screened patients, simulated lifetime incidence decreased with lower to higher ADRs (26.6; 95% CI, 20.0-34.3 for quintile 1 vs 12.5; 95% CI, 9.3-16.5 for quintile 5) as did mortality (5.7; 95% CI, 4.2-7.7 for quintile 1 vs 2.3; 95% CI, 1.7-3.1 for quintile 5). Compared with quintile 1, simulated lifetime incidence was on average 11.4% (95% CI, 10.3%-11.9%) lower for every 5 percentage-point increase of ADRs and for mortality, 12.8% (95% CI, 11.1%-13.7%) lower. Complications increased from 6.0 (95% CI, 4.0-8.5) of 2777 colonoscopies (95% CI, 2626-2943) in quintile 1 to 8.9 (95% CI, 6.1-12.0) complications of 3376 (95% CI, 3081-3681) colonoscopies in quintile 5. Estimated net screening costs were lower from quintile 1 (US $2.1 million, 95% CI, $1.8-$2.4 million) to quintile 5 (US $1.8 million, 95% CI, $1.3-$2.3 million) due to averted cancer treatment costs. Results were stable across sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this microsimulation modeling study, higher adenoma detection rates in screening colonoscopy were associated with lower lifetime risks of colorectal cancer and colorectal cancer mortality without being associated with higher overall costs. Future research is needed to assess whether increasing adenoma detection would be associated with improved patient outcomes.
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.