Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29927702›Full record

ArticlePopulation health management2019

Balancing Adherence and Expense: The Cost-Effectiveness of Two-Sample vs One-Sample Fecal Immunochemical Test.

David H Smith, Maureen O'Keeffe Rosetti, David M Mosen, A Gabriela Rosales, Erin Keast, Nancy Perrin, Adrianne C Feldstein, Theodore R Levin, Elizabeth G Liles

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Population health management, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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.

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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Observational
  3. Article
  4. Article
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

9 authors.

David H Smith1 Center for Health Research , Kaiser Permanente Northwest, Portland, Oregon.
Maureen O'Keeffe Rosetti1 Center for Health Research , Kaiser Permanente Northwest, Portland, Oregon.
David M Mosen1 Center for Health Research , Kaiser Permanente Northwest, Portland, Oregon.
A Gabriela Rosales1 Center for Health Research , Kaiser Permanente Northwest, Portland, Oregon.
Erin Keast1 Center for Health Research , Kaiser Permanente Northwest, Portland, Oregon.
Nancy Perrin1 Center for Health Research , Kaiser Permanente Northwest, Portland, Oregon.
Adrianne C Feldstein1 Center for Health Research , Kaiser Permanente Northwest, Portland, Oregon.
Theodore R Levin3 Kaiser Permanente Medical Center , Walnut Creek, California.
Elizabeth G Liles1 Center for Health Research , Kaiser Permanente Northwest, Portland, Oregon.

Funding

Maximizing yield of the fecal immunochemical test for colorectal cancer screeningR01CA154982 · NCI · KAISER FOUNDATION RESEARCH INSTITUTE · PI LILES, ELIZABETH GRACE · 2011 to 2014
$2.3M
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA154982
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Colorectal cancer (CRC) causes more than 50,000 deaths each year in the United States but early detection through screening yields survival gains; those diagnosed with early stage disease have a 5-year survival greater than 90%, compared to 12% for those diagnosed with late stage disease. Using data from a large integrated health system, this study evaluates the cost-effectiveness of fecal immunochemical testing (FIT), a common CRC screening tool. A probabilistic decision-analytic model was used to examine the costs and outcomes of positive test results from a 1-FIT regimen compared with a 2-FIT regimen. The authors compared 5 diagnostic cutoffs of hemoglobin concentration for each test (for a total of 10 screening options). The principal outcome from the analysis was the cost per additional advanced neoplasia (AN) detected. The authors also estimated the number of cancers detected and life-years gained from detecting AN. The following costs were included: program management of the screening program, patient identification, FIT kits and their processing, and diagnostic colonoscopy following a positive FIT. Per-person costs ranged from $33 (1-FIT at 150ng/ml) to $92 (2-FIT at 50ng/ml) across screening options. Depending on willingness to pay, the 1-FIT 50 ng/ml and the 2-FIT 50 ng/ml are the dominant strategies with cost-effectiveness of $11,198 and $28,389, respectively, for an additional AN detected. The estimates of cancers avoided per 1000 screens ranged from 1.46 to 4.86, depending on the strategy and the assumptions of AN to cancer progression.

Indexed as

Early Detection of CancerImmunohistochemistryOccult BloodColorectal NeoplasmsCost-Benefit AnalysisFecesFemaleHumansMaleMiddle Agedcolorectal cancer screeningcost-effectivenessfecal immunochemical testing (FIT)

Identifiers

PMID29927702
PMCPMC6386086

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.