Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32982508›Full record

ReviewRisk management and healthcare policy2020

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review.

Farhad Khalili, Behzad Najafi, Fariborz Mansour-Ghanaei, Mahmood Yousefi, Hadi Abdollahzad, Ali Motlagh

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Risk management and healthcare policy, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

26 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Chinese utility weights for the EORTC cancer-specific utility instrument QLU-C10D.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2024
    Article
  10. Colorectal cancer screening: Modalities and adherence.World journal of gastroenterology · 2024
    Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Cost-Consequence Analysis of Colon Cancer Screening among Patients with Long-Standing Ulcerative Colitis: 11 Years' Experience of Saudi Population.Saudi pharmaceutical journal : SPJ : the official publication of the Saudi Pharmaceutical Society · 2023
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. 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

6 authors.

Farhad KhaliliDepartment of Health Economics, School of Management and Medical Informatics, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Iran.ORCID 0000-0002-7885-8643
Behzad NajafiIranian Center of Excellence in Health Management, School of Management and Medical Informatics, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Iran.ORCID 0000-0001-9479-3774
Fariborz Mansour-GhanaeiGastrointestinal and Liver Diseases Research Center, Guilan University of Medical Sciences, Rasht, Iran.ORCID 0000-0002-6264-0025
Mahmood YousefiDepartment of Health Economics, Iranian Center of Excellence in Health Management, School of Management and Medical Informatics, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Iran.
Hadi AbdollahzadResearch Center for Environmental Determinants of Health, Health Institute, Kermanshah University of Medical Sciences, Kermanshah, Iran.ORCID 0000-0003-2367-9573
Ali MotlaghNational Cancer Control Secretariat, Ministry of Health and Medical Education, Tehran, Iran.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionColorectal cancer (CRC) is a significant health problem with an increasing incidence worldwide. Screening is one of the ways, in which cases and deaths of CRC can be prevented. The objective of this systematic review was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the different CRC screening techniques and to specify the efficient technique from a cost-effectiveness perspective.

methodsThe economic studies of CRC screening in general populations (average risk), aged 50 years and above were reviewed. Two reviewers independently reviewed the titles, abstracts, and full-texts of the studies in five databases: Cochrane, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science and PubMed. The disagreements between reviewers were resolved through the authors' consensus. The main outcome measures in this systematic review were the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of screening versus no-screening and then in comparison with other screening techniques. The ICER is defined by the difference in cost between two possible interventions, divided by the difference in their effect.

resultsEight studies were identified and retained for the final analysis. In this study, when screening techniques were compared to no-screening, all CRC screening techniques showed to be cost-effective. The lowest ICER calculated was $PPP -16265/quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) (the negative ICERs were between purchasing power parity in US dollar ($PPP) -16265/QALY to $PPP -1988/QALY, whereas the positive ICERs were between $PPP 1257/QALY to $PPP 55987/QALY). For studies comparing various screening techniques, there was great heterogeneity in terms of the structures of the analyses, leading to diverse conclusions about their incremental cost-effectiveness.

conclusionAll CRC screening techniques were cost-effective, compared with the no-screening methods. The cost-effectiveness of the various screening techniques mainly was dependent on the context-specific parameters and highly affected by the framework of the cost-effectiveness analysis. In order to make the studies comparable, it is important to adopt a reference-based methodology for economic evaluation studies.

Indexed as

colorectal cancereconomic evaluationincremental cost-effectiveness ratioscreening techniques

Identifiers

PMID32982508
PMCPMC7490076

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.