ArticleCancer research and treatment2016
Cost Effectiveness of Colorectal Cancer Screening Interventions with Their Effects on Health Disparity Being Considered.
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.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Incorporating Equity Concerns in Cost-Effectiveness Analyses: A Systematic Literature Review.PharmacoEconomics · 2022Pooled it
- Economics of Multicomponent Interventions to Increase Breast, Cervical, and Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Community Guide Systematic Review.American journal of preventive medicine · 2019Pooled it
- Cost effectiveness analysis of three colorectal cancer screening modalities in Kuwait.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- 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 · 2024Article
- Article
- Assessing adherence and cost-benefit of colorectal cancer screening for accountable providers.Proceedings (Baylor University. Medical Center) · 2019Article
- Budget Impact of the Accreditation Program for Clinical Laboratories on Colorectal Cancer Screening via Fecal Immunochemical Testing: Results from the National Cancer Screening Program in Korea.Annals of laboratory medicine · 2018Article
- Strategic Distributional Cost-Effectiveness Analysis for Improving National Cancer Screening Uptake in Cervical Cancer: A Focus on Regional Inequality in South Korea.Cancer research and treatment · 2018Article
- Cost-effectiveness of Colorectal Cancer Screening and Treatment Methods: Mapping of Systematic Reviews.Asia-Pacific journal of oncology nursingReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.