ReviewRisk management and healthcare policy2020
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review.
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.
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
26 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- The association between organised colorectal cancer screening strategies and reduction of its related mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC cancer · 2024Pooled it
- Pooled it
- A methodological analysis of systematic reviews of cost-effectiveness in screening, diagnosis, and treatment of colorectal cancer.Health economics review · 2026Review
- Health economics evaluation of artificial intelligence in the field of oncology: a scoping review.Health economics review · 2026Review
- Economic Evaluation of Fecal Occult Blood Test and Colonoscopy for Colorectal Cancer Screening in Indonesia: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP · 2026Article
- Tailored minimum examined lymph node threshold for colon cancer from large multi database analysis.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Assessing the Benefits and Burdens of Preventive Interventions.Statistics in medicine · 2026Article
- The Cost-Effectiveness of Organized National Colorectal Cancer Screening Program in Croatia.Cancers · 2025Article
- 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 · 2024Article
- Colorectal cancer screening: Modalities and adherence.World journal of gastroenterology · 2024Article
- Colorectal cancer screening: A review of current knowledge and progress in research.World journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2024Review
- Bowel Preparation Burden, Rectal Pain and Abdominal Discomfort: Perspective of Participants Undergoing CT Colonography and Colonoscopy.Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP · 2024Article
- Why is early detection of colon cancer still not possible in 2023?World journal of gastroenterology · 2024Review
- 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 · 2023Article
- Colorectal Cancer (CRC) Screening Literacy and Facilitators Related to a Free Screening Program in Thailand.Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP · 2023Article
- Review
- A comparison of international modelling methods to evaluate health economics of colorectal cancer screening: a systematic review protocol.Systematic reviews · 2023Article
- Early onset colorectal cancer: Challenges across the cancer care continuum.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2022Review
- Clinical Effectiveness of Faecal Immunochemical Test in the Early Detection of Colorectal Cancer-An Umbrella Review.Cancers · 2022Review
- Epidemiologic disparities in colon cancer screening and adherence during the COVID-19 pandemic: a retrospective cohort analysis.International journal of colorectal disease · 2022Article
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
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
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.