Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26471036›Full record

Trial reportBMC cancer2015

Cost-effectiveness simulation and analysis of colorectal cancer screening in Hong Kong Chinese population: comparison amongst colonoscopy, guaiac and immunologic fecal occult blood testing.

Carlos K H Wong, Cindy L K Lam, Y F Wan, Daniel Y T Fong

Registry-linked trialAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC cancer, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02038283 (A Study on Health-related Quality of Life of Patients With Colorectal Neoplasm and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Colorectal Cancer Screening in Hong Kong), which is not on this map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 1 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.

NCT02038283 completednot on this map

A Study on Health-related Quality of Life of Patients With Colorectal Neoplasm and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Colorectal Cancer Screening in Hong Kong

TypeobservationalSponsorThe University of Hong KongRan2009 to 2012Enrolled587ConditionsColorectal Neoplasms
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Cost-Effectiveness of Colorectal Cancer Genetic Testing.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
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

4 authors.

Carlos K H WongDepartment of Family Medicine and Primary Care, The University of Hong Kong, 3/F, Ap Lei Chau Clinic, 161 Ap Lei Chau Main Street, Ap Lei Chau, Hong Kong, Hong Kong. carlosho@hku.hk.
Cindy L K LamDepartment of Family Medicine and Primary Care, The University of Hong Kong, 3/F, Ap Lei Chau Clinic, 161 Ap Lei Chau Main Street, Ap Lei Chau, Hong Kong, Hong Kong.
Y F WanDepartment of Family Medicine and Primary Care, The University of Hong Kong, 3/F, Ap Lei Chau Clinic, 161 Ap Lei Chau Main Street, Ap Lei Chau, Hong Kong, Hong Kong.
Daniel Y T FongSchool of Nursing, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, Hong Kong.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of CRC screening strategies from the healthcare service provider perspective based on Chinese population.

methodsA Markov model was constructed to compare the cost-effectiveness of recommended screening strategies including annual/biennial guaiac fecal occult blood testing (G-FOBT), annual/biennial immunologic FOBT (I-FOBT), and colonoscopy every 10 years in Chinese aged 50 year over a 25-year period. External validity of model was tested against data retrieved from published randomized controlled trials of G-FOBT. Recourse use data collected from Chinese subjects among staging of colorectal neoplasm were combined with published unit cost data ($USD in 2009 price values) to estimate a stage-specific cost per patient. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were quantified based on the stage duration and SF-6D preference-based value of each stage. The cost-effectiveness outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) represented by costs per life-years (LY) and costs per QALYs gained.

resultsIn base-case scenario, the non-dominated strategies were annual and biennial I-FOBT. Compared with no screening, the ICER presented $20,542/LYs and $3155/QALYs gained for annual I-FOBT, and $19,838/LYs gained and $2976/QALYs gained for biennial I-FOBT. The optimal screening strategy was annual I-FOBT that attained the highest ICER at the threshold of $50,000 per LYs or QALYs gained.

conclusionThe Markov model informed the health policymakers that I-FOBT every year may be the most effective and cost-effective CRC screening strategy among recommended screening strategies, depending on the willingness-to-pay of mass screening for Chinese population.

trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT02038283.

Indexed as

ColonoscopyCost-Benefit AnalysisEarly Detection of CancerAgedColorectal NeoplasmsFecesFemaleGuaiacHong KongHumansMaleMass ScreeningMiddle AgedOccult BloodQuality-Adjusted Life YearsGuaiac

Identifiers

PMID26471036
PMCPMC4608156

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.