ArticlePreventive medicine reports2022
Cost-effectiveness analysis of colorectal cancer screening in Shanghai, China: A modelling study.
Article in Preventive medicine reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cost-Effectiveness of Initiating Colorectal Cancer Screening at Age 40 Among Average-Risk Individuals in China.International journal of cancer · 2026Article
- Cost-effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening under different scenarios of colonoscopy adherence: a microsimulation study.BMJ public health · 2025Article
- Age, frequency, and strategy optimization for organized colorectal cancer screening: a decision analysis conducted in China for the years 2023-2038.BMC cancer · 2024Article
- Evaluation of long-term benefits and cost-effectiveness of nation-wide colorectal cancer screening strategies in China in 2020-2060: a modelling analysis.The Lancet regional health. Western Pacific · 2024Article
- Efficient organized colorectal cancer screening in Shenzhen: a microsimulation modelling study.BMC public health · 2024Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: The current community-based colorectal cancer (CRC) screening program in Shanghai, launched in 2013, invited individuals aged 50-74 years to triennial screening with a qualitative faecal immunochemical test (FIT) and questionnaire-based risk assessment (RA). We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the existing Shanghai screening program and compare it to using a validated two-sample quantitative FIT. Methods: We simulated four strategies (no screening, Shanghai FIT, Shanghai FIT + RA and validated FIT) for the Shanghai screening program and evaluated CRC incidence, CRC mortality, the number of life years gained (LYG), the number of FITs, and colonoscopies required for each. An incremental cost-effectiveness analysis was performed to assess the cost- effectiveness of each strategy. Results: All screening modalities reduced CRC incidence and CRC mortality, gained extra number of LYG compared to no screening. Screening using the Shanghai FIT and validated FIT reduced CRC incidence from 45 cases to 43 per 1,000 simulated individuals (4.4%). Incidence was reduced to 42 cases (6.7%) using the Shanghai FIT + RA. All screening strategies reduced CRC mortality by 10.0% (from 10 to 9 deaths) and resulted in 6 to 7 LYG. The validated FIT was the most cost-effective among the evaluated strategies (ICER ¥26,461 per LYG). Conclusions: Our findings show that the current Shanghai screening program is (cost-) effective compared to no screening, but changing to a validated FIT would make the program more efficient.
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.