ArticleCost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E2018
Cost-effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening in Ukraine.
Article in Cost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 3 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
18 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 30 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Simulation modeling validity and utility in colorectal cancer screening delivery: A systematic review.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2020Pooled it
- Pooled it
- The efficacy of colorectal cancer screening: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Preventive medicine reports · 2026Review
- Colorectal cancer incidence and survival trends in Uganda: a population-based registry analysis (2000-20).International journal of epidemiology · 2026Article
- 2021 Clinical Practice Guidelines on Periodic Health Examination.Acta medica Philippina · 2026Article
- Cost effectiveness analysis of three colorectal cancer screening modalities in Kuwait.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Framework for developing cost-effectiveness analysis threshold: the case of Egypt.The Journal of the Egyptian Public Health Association · 2024Article
- A Review of Community Awareness for Colorectal Cancer Screening and Prevention in North and Central Asian Countries.Cureus · 2023Review
- Colonoscopy Needs for Implementation of a Colorectal Cancer Screening Program in Ukraine.World journal of surgery · 2022Article
- Global Health 101.Clinics in colon and rectal surgery · 2022Review
- Cost-effectiveness analysis of colonoscopy and fecal immunochemical testing for colorectal cancer screening in China.Frontiers in public health · 2022Article
- Article
- Disparities in Recommendations for Colorectal Cancer Screening Among Average-Risk Individuals: An Ecobiosocial Approach.Risk management and healthcare policy · 2022Review
- Barriers to Evidence-Based Colorectal Cancer Care in Ukraine.World journal of surgery · 2021Article
- The Current Landscape of Staging and Treatment of Colorectal Cancer in a Region of Ukraine: a Mixed Methods Study.World journal of surgery · 2021Article
- Trends in Solid Tumor Incidence in Ukraine 30 Years After Chernobyl.Journal of global oncology · 2019Article
- Colorectal Cancer in Ukraine: Regional Disparities and National Trends in Incidence, Management, and Mortality.Journal of global oncology · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundColorectal cancer is one of the most common cancers worldwide and is associated with high mortality when detected at a later stage. There is a paucity of studies from low and middle income countries to support the cost-effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening. We aim to analyze the cost-effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening compared to no screening in Ukraine, a lower-middle income country.
methodsWe developed a deterministic Markov cohort model to assess the cost-effectiveness of three colorectal cancer screening strategies [fecal occult blood test (FOBT) every year, flexible sigmoidoscopy with FOBT every 5 years, and colonoscopy every 10 years] compared to no screening. We modeled outcomes in terms of cost per quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) over a lifetime time horizon. We performed sensitivity analyses on treatment adherence, test characteristics and costs. Analyses were conducted from the perspective of the Ministry of Health of Ukraine.
resultsThe base-case lifetime cost-effectiveness analysis showed that all three screening strategies were cost saving compared to no screening, and among the three strategies, colonoscopy every 10 years was the dominant strategy compared to no screening with standard adherence to treatment. When decreased adherence to treatment was modeled, colonoscopy every 10 years was the most cost-effective strategy with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $843 per QALY compared with no screening.
conclusionOur findings indicate that colorectal cancer screening can save money and improve health compared to no screening in Ukraine. Colonoscopy every 10 years is superior to the other screening modalities evaluated in this study. This knowledge can be used to concentrate efforts on developing a national screening program in Ukraine.
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.