ArticleAlimentary pharmacology & therapeutics2021
Comparative benefit and cost-effectiveness of mailed-out faecal immunochemical tests vs collection at the general practitioner.
Article in Alimentary pharmacology & therapeutics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Inter-physician heterogeneity in colorectal cancer screening participation in France: a study based on the French National Health Data System.Archives of public health = Archives belges de sante publique · 2026Article
- Fecal Occult Blood Tests for Colorectal Cancer Screening in Routine Medical Care: A Longitudinal Analysis From Germany.Deutsches Arzteblatt international · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundParticipation in the colorectal cancer screening programme in France has been well below the 45% considered acceptable by European guidelines, potentially attributable to the need to collect the faecal immunochemical test (FIT) at the general practitioner.
aimTo estimate the potential benefits and costs of including the FIT in the invitation letter.
methodsA well-established microsimulation model was used to simulate the French population 35 years and older in 2018. We estimated quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) gained, costs and cost-effectiveness of the current screening programme, and compared it to a variation of the programme where the FIT was mailed to participants and adherence was assumed to increase to 45%. We also estimated the threshold increase in participation needed to make this intervention cost-effective.
resultsUnder the current programme, 53.8 colorectal cancer (CRC) cases and 25.2 CRC deaths per 1000 individuals are expected to occur over a lifetime. If sending out the FIT increases screening participation to 45%, this intervention would result in 6% fewer CRC deaths and 3% fewer CRC cases, resulting in an estimated cost-effectiveness ratio of €2149 per QALY gained. Sending out the FIT would only need to increase participation by 0.7% point for this intervention to be considered cost-effective.
conclusionIncluding the FIT in the invitation letter is likely a very cost-effective intervention to increase participation in CRC screening. These results for France are also informative for many other countries around the world where FIT needs to be collected at pharmacies or general practitioners.
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.