ArticleJAMA2016
Estimation of Benefits, Burden, and Harms of Colorectal Cancer Screening Strategies: Modeling Study for the US Preventive Services Task Force.
Article in JAMA, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03843957 (Effectiveness and Implementation of mPATH-CRC), which is not on this map. Cited by 247 papers, 8 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.
Effectiveness and Implementation of mPATH-CRC: a Mobile Health System for Colorectal Cancer Screening
Who cites it
247 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- One in three adenomas could be missed by white-light colonoscopy - findings from a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC gastroenterology · 2025Pooled it
- Smoking as a risk factor for colorectal neoplasms in young individuals? A systematic meta-analysis.International journal of colorectal disease · 2023Pooled it
- The impact of pancreatic cancer screening on life expectancy: A systematic review of modeling studies.International journal of cancer · 2023Pooled it
- Delphi Initiative for Early-Onset Colorectal Cancer (DIRECt) International Management Guidelines.Clinical gastroenterology and hepatology : the official clinical practice journal of the American Gastroenterological Association · 2023Guideline
- Pooled it
- Economic evaluations of colorectal cancer screening: A systematic review and quality assessment.Clinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil) · 2023Pooled it
- Effect of Bowel Preparation to Colonoscopy Interval on Preparation Quality and Colonoscopy Outcomes: A Meta-Analysis.The Turkish journal of gastroenterology : the official journal of Turkish Society of Gastroenterology · 2023Pooled it
- Recommendations for Follow-Up After Colonoscopy and Polypectomy: A Consensus Update by the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer.The American journal of gastroenterology · 2020Guideline
- Randomized Trial of Facilitated Adherence to Screening Colonoscopy vs Sequential Fecal-Based Blood Test.Gastroenterology · 2023Trial
- Clinical Decision Support with or without Shared Decision Making to Improve Preventive Cancer Care: A Cluster-Randomized Trial.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2022Trial
- Effect of Individualized Preventive Care Recommendations vs Usual Care on Patient Interest and Use of Recommendations: A Pilot Randomized Clinical Trial.JAMA network open · 2021Trial
- Validation of Colorectal Cancer Models on Long-term Outcomes from a Randomized Controlled Trial.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2020Trial
- Outreach and Inreach Strategies for Colorectal Cancer Screening Among Latinos at a Federally Qualified Health Center: A Randomized Controlled Trial, 2015-2018.American journal of public health · 2020Trial
- Prospective Cohort study of Predictors of Follow-Up Diagnostic Colonoscopy from a Pragmatic Trial of FIT Screening.Scientific reports · 2020Trial
- Trial
- Modeling in Colorectal Cancer Screening: Assessing External and Predictive Validity of MISCAN-Colon Microsimulation Model Using NORCCAP Trial Results.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2018Trial
- Trial
- Article
- Fecal Immunochemical Test and Multitarget Stool DNA Testing for Colorectal Cancer Screening in Real-World Practice: A Literature Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Colorectal Cancer Screening and Mortality Trends in the United States Over 25 Years: A Story of Success and Inequity.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2026Article
187 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
importanceThe US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) is updating its 2008 colorectal cancer (CRC) screening recommendations.
objectiveTo inform the USPSTF by modeling the benefits, burden, and harms of CRC screening strategies; estimating the optimal ages to begin and end screening; and identifying a set of model-recommendable strategies that provide similar life-years gained (LYG) and a comparable balance between LYG and screening burden. DESIGN, SETTING, AND
participantsComparative modeling with 3 microsimulation models of a hypothetical cohort of previously unscreened US 40-year-olds with no prior CRC diagnosis. EXPOSURES: Screening with sensitive guaiac-based fecal occult blood testing, fecal immunochemical testing (FIT), multitarget stool DNA testing, flexible sigmoidoscopy with or without stool testing, computed tomographic colonography (CTC), or colonoscopy starting at age 45, 50, or 55 years and ending at age 75, 80, or 85 years. Screening intervals varied by modality. Full adherence for all strategies was assumed. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Life-years gained compared with no screening (benefit), lifetime number of colonoscopies required (burden), lifetime number of colonoscopy complications (harms), and ratios of incremental burden and benefit (efficiency ratios) per 1000 40-year-olds.
resultsThe screening strategies provided LYG in the range of 152 to 313 per 1000 40-year-olds. Lifetime colonoscopy burden per 1000 persons ranged from fewer than 900 (FIT every 3 years from ages 55-75 years) to more than 7500 (colonoscopy screening every 5 years from ages 45-85 years). Harm from screening was at most 23 complications per 1000 persons screened. Strategies with screening beginning at age 50 years generally provided more LYG as well as more additional LYG per additional colonoscopy than strategies with screening beginning at age 55 years. There were limited empirical data to support a start age of 45 years. For persons adequately screened up to age 75 years, additional screening yielded small increases in LYG relative to the increase in colonoscopy burden. With screening from ages 50 to 75 years, 4 strategies yielded a comparable balance of screening burden and similar LYG (median LYG per 1000 across the models): colonoscopy every 10 years (270 LYG); sigmoidoscopy every 10 years with annual FIT (256 LYG); CTC every 5 years (248 LYG); and annual FIT (244 LYG). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this microsimulation modeling study of a previously unscreened population undergoing CRC screening that assumed 100% adherence, the strategies of colonoscopy every 10 years, annual FIT, sigmoidoscopy every 10 years with annual FIT, and CTC every 5 years performed from ages 50 through 75 years provided similar LYG and a comparable balance of benefit and screening burden.
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.