ArticleUnited European gastroenterology journal2019
Cost-utility analysis of colonoscopy or faecal immunochemical test for population-based organised colorectal cancer screening.
Article in United European gastroenterology journal, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 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
19 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Colorectal Cancer Screening Programs in Latin America: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.JAMA network open · 2024Pooled it
- Effectiveness of sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy screening on colorectal cancer incidence and mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trial.Frontiers in oncology · 2024Pooled it
- Simulation modeling validity and utility in colorectal cancer screening delivery: A systematic review.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2020Pooled it
- Family still matters: Counseling patients with complex family histories of colon and endometrial cancers.Molecular genetics & genomic medicine · 2019Trial
- The efficacy of colorectal cancer screening: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Preventive medicine reports · 2026Review
- Individual Preference for Fecal Immunochemical Test Options among Younger Adults: A Discrete Choice Experiment.PharmacoEconomics - open · 2026Article
- From planning to savings: CRC screening organization and cost-utility analysis of early CRC detection in Bulgaria.Archives of public health = Archives belges de sante publique · 2025Article
- A preliminary assessment of a stool-based microRNA profile for early colorectal cancer screening.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Colorectal cancer: local results and significance in Hungary.Journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2024Article
- Stool and blood biomarkers for colorectal cancer management: an update on screening and disease monitoring.Molecular cancer · 2024Review
- Cost-effectiveness of lung cancer screening with volume computed tomography in Portugal.Journal of comparative effectiveness research · 2024Article
- Advances in microRNAs as Emerging Biomarkers for Colorectal Cancer Early Detection and Diagnosis.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Review
- Stool Glycoproteomics Signatures of Pre-Cancerous Lesions and Colorectal Cancer.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Article
- MicroRNA Biomarkers as Promising Tools for Early Colorectal Cancer Screening-A Comprehensive Review.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Review
- Clinical Effectiveness of Faecal Immunochemical Test in the Early Detection of Colorectal Cancer-An Umbrella Review.Cancers · 2022Review
- Should Colorectal Cancer Screening in Portugal Start at the Age of 45 Years? A Cost-Utility Analysis.GE Portuguese journal of gastroenterology · 2021Article
- Individual feedback and monitoring of endoscopist performance improves the adenoma detection rate in screening colonoscopy: a prospective case-control study.Surgical endoscopy · 2021Article
- Triage May Improve Selection to Colonoscopy and Reduce the Number of Unnecessary Colonoscopies.Cancers · 2020Article
- Over-the-scope clips are cost-effective in recurrent peptic ulcer bleeding.United European gastroenterology journal · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Organised programmes for colorectal cancer screening demand a high burden of medical and economic resources. The preferred methods are the faecal immunochemical test and primary colonoscopy. Objective: The purpose of this study was to perform an economic analysis and comparison between these tests in Europe. Methods: We used a Markov cost-utility analysis from a societal perspective comparing biennial faecal immunochemical test or colonoscopy every 10 years screening versus non-screening in Portugal. The population was screened, aged from 50-74 years, and efficacy was evaluated in quality-adjusted life years. For the base-case scenario, the faecal immunochemical test cost was €3 with 50% acceptance and colonoscopy cost was €397 with 38% acceptance. The threshold was set at €39,760/quality-adjusted life years and the primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. Results: Screening by biennial faecal immunochemical test and primary colonoscopy every 10 years resulted in incremental utilities of 0.00151 quality-adjusted life years and 0.00185 quality-adjusted life years at additional costs of €4 and €191, respectively. The faecal immunochemical test was the most cost-effective option providing an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €2694/quality-adjusted life years versus €103,633/quality-adjusted life years for colonoscopy. Colonoscopy capacity would have to increase 1.3% for a faecal immunochemical test programme or 31% for colonoscopy. Conclusion: Biennial faecal immunochemical test screening is better than colonoscopy as it is cost-effective, allows more individuals to get screened, and provides a more rational use of the endoscopic capacity available.
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.