SynthesisPloS one2019
Economic evaluations of screening strategies for the early detection of colorectal cancer in the average-risk population: A systematic literature review.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- A Systematic Review of Cost-Effectiveness Analyses of Colorectal Cancer Screening in Europe: Have Studies Included Optimal Screening Intensities?Applied health economics and health policy · 2023Pooled it
- Pooled it
- A methodological analysis of systematic reviews of cost-effectiveness in screening, diagnosis, and treatment of colorectal cancer.Health economics review · 2026Review
- Evaluation of Reporting Quality of Systematic Reviews on Health Economic Evaluation Studies Based on the CHEERS Statement: An Overview of Reviews.Iranian journal of public health · 2024Review
- Painless colonoscopy: fact or fiction?Clinical endoscopy · 2024Review
- Robotic Colonoscopy and Beyond: Insights into Modern Lower Gastrointestinal Endoscopy.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Evaluating the predictive performance of gut microbiota for the early-stage colorectal cancer.BMC gastroenterology · 2022Article
- Comorbidities and Risk Factors of Patients Diagnosed with CRC after Positive Fecal Test in Real Life.Cancers · 2022Article
- Research on the Economics of Cancer-Related Health Care: An Overview of the Review Literature.Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Monographs · 2022Review
- Cost-Effectiveness of Colorectal Cancer Genetic Testing.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
- Endorobots for Colonoscopy: Design Challenges and Available Technologies.Frontiers in robotics and AI · 2021Review
- Impact of colorectal cancer screening participation in remote northern Canada: A retrospective cohort study.World journal of gastroenterology · 2020Article
- Does Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Really Need to Abandon the Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio to Embrace Net Benefit?PharmacoEconomics · 2020Article
- A 5-year evaluation of early-and late-onset sporadic colorectal cancer screening in central Saudi Arabia.Saudi journal of gastroenterology : official journal of the Saudi Gastroenterology AssociationArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundColorectal cancer (CRC) screening has proven effective in reducing CRC mortality. This study aimed to systematically review, and evaluate the reporting quality, of the economic evidence regarding CRC screening in average-risk individuals.
methodsDatabases searched included Medline, EMBASE, National Health Service Economic Evaluation, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, Cost-Effectiveness Analysis registry, EconLit, and Health Technology Assessment database. Eligible studies were cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analyses comparing CRC screening strategies in average-risk individuals, published in English or Spanish, between January 2012 and November 2018. Reporting quality was assessed using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist.
resultsOf 1,993 publications initially retrieved, 477 were excluded by duplicate review, 1,449 by title/abstract review, and 34 by full-text review. Finally, 33 publications were included in the qualitative synthesis. Most studies were conducted in Europe (36,4%), followed by United States (24,2%) and Asia (24,2%). The main screening modalities considered were fecal immunochemical tests (70%), colonoscopy (67%), guaiac fecal occult blood test (42%) and flexible sigmoidoscopy (30%). In most studies, CRC screening was deemed cost-effective compared to no screening. Sensitivity analyses indicated that cost of CRC screening tests, adherence to screening, screening test sensitivity, and cost of CRC treatment had the greatest impact on cost-effectiveness results across studies. The majority of studies (73%) adequately reported at least 50% of the items included in the CHEERS checklist. Least well reported items included setting, study perspective, discount rate, model choice, and methods to identify effectiveness data or to estimate resource use and costs.
conclusionsCRC screening is an efficient alternative to no screening. Nevertheless, it is not possible to conclude which strategy should be preferred for population-based screening programs. Although we observed an overall good adherence to CHEERS recommendations, there is still room for improvement in economic evaluations reporting in this field.
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.