Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26727714›Full record

ArticleCancer research and treatment2016

Cost Effectiveness of Colorectal Cancer Screening Interventions with Their Effects on Health Disparity Being Considered.

Kwang-Sig Lee, Eun-Cheol Park

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Cancer research and treatment, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 2 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Cost-effectiveness Analysis of Colorectal Cancer Screening Strategies Using Active Learning and Monte Carlo Simulation.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2024
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

2 authors.

Kwang-Sig LeeHealth Insurance Policy Research Institute, Korea National Health Insurance Service, Wonju, Korea.
Eun-Cheol ParkDepartment of Preventive Medicine and Institute of Health Services Research, Yonsei University, Seoul, Korea.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe purpose of this study was to evaluate the cost effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening interventions with their effects on health disparity being considered. MATERIALS AND

methodsMarkov cohort simulation was conducted with the cycle/duration of 1/40 year(s). Data came from the results of randomized trials and others. Participants were hypothetical cohorts aged 50 years as of year 2013 in 16 Korean provinces. The interventions until the age of 80 were annual organized fecal occult blood test (FOBT) (standard screening), annual FOBT with basic reminders for provinces with higher mortalities than the national average (targeted reminder) and annual FOBT with basic/enhanced reminders for all provinces (universal reminder 1 and 2). The comparison was non-screening, the outcome was quality-adjusted life years, and only medical costs for screening and treatment were considered from a societal perspective. The Atkinson incremental cost effectiveness ratio (Atkinson ICER), the incremental cost effectiveness ratio adjusted by the Atkinson Inequality Index, was used to evaluate the cost effectiveness of the four interventions with their impacts on regional health disparity being considered.

resultsHealth disparity was smallest (or greatest) in non-screening (or the standard screening). The targeted reminder had smaller health disparity, and smaller Atkinson ICER with respect to standard screening, than did the universal reminder 1 and 2.

conclusionThe targeted reminder might be more cost effective than the universal reminders with their effects on health disparity being considered. This study helps to develop promotional effort for colorectal cancer screening with both the greatest cost effectiveness and the smallest health disparity.

Indexed as

Cost-Benefit AnalysisHealth Status DisparitiesOccult BloodAgedBiopsyCohort StudiesColonoscopyColorectal NeoplasmsEarly Detection of CancerHealthcare DisparitiesHumansMarkov ChainsMass ScreeningMiddle AgedQuality-Adjusted Life YearsSocioeconomic FactorsColorectal neoplasmsCost-benefit analysisHealth status disparitiesMass screening

Identifiers

PMID26727714
PMCPMC4946354

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.