ArticleFrontiers in public health2022
Cost-effectiveness analysis of colonoscopy and fecal immunochemical testing for colorectal cancer screening in China.
Article in Frontiers in public health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cost-Effectiveness of Initiating Colorectal Cancer Screening at Age 40 Among Average-Risk Individuals in China.International journal of cancer · 2026Article
- Cost-Effectiveness of Colonoscopy for Screening: What Matters Most?Gut and liver · 2026Article
- Research advances in early screening for colorectal cancer (Review).Molecular and clinical oncology · 2026Review
- Diagnostic performance of multimodal biomarkers in colorectal cancer.Scientific reports · 2026Observational
- Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Annual vs Biennial Fecal Immunochemical Testing for Colorectal Cancer Screening in Japan: A Microsimulation Analysis.Journal of health economics and outcomes research · 2026Article
- Equitable colorectal cancer screening implementation framework via a modified Delphi Consensus for Romanian healthcare.Scientific reports · 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
- Clinical diagnostic value of methylated SEPT9 combined with NLR, PLR and LMR in colorectal cancer.BMC gastroenterology · 2024Article
- Artificial intelligence in colonoscopy: from detection to diagnosis.The Korean journal of internal medicine · 2024Review
- Cost-Utility Analysis for Colorectal Cancer Screening According to the Initiating Age of National Cancer Screening Program in Korea.Journal of Korean medical science · 2024Article
- Diagnostic value of human fecal SDC2 gene in colorectal cancer.American journal of translational research · 2023Article
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the colorectal cancer screening in China, and that when the screening was implemented in a specific region. Methods: A 13-state Markov model was established to compare four screening protocols, including annual fecal immunochemical testing (FIT1), biennial fecal immunochemical testing (FIT2), electronic colonoscopy every 10 years (e-CSPY10), and electronic colonoscopy every 5 years (e-CSPY5), with no screening from the perspective of Chinese healthcare system. The model simulated the health states of a cohort of 100,000 average-risk individuals aging from 50 to 75. Additionally, scenarios including the implementation in a specific region, starting from 40, and incompletely successful treatment of cancer were also analyzed. Results: Annual and biennial FIT could save 8.13USD (US Dollar) and 44.96USD per person, and increase 0.0705QALYs (Quality-Adjusted Life Years) and 0.2341 QALYs compared with no screening, respectively. Annual FIT could decrease costs by 36.81USD per person and increase 0.1637 QALYs in comparison to biennial FIT. The results showed that both annual and biennial FIT for screening were dominant over no screening, and annual FIT was dominant over biennial FIT. The ICER (Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio) for e-CSPY10 were 1183.51USD/QALY and 536.66USD/QALY compared with FIT1 and FIT2. The ICER for e-CSPY5 were 1158.16USD/QALY and 770.85USD/QALY compared with FIT1 and FIT2. And the ICER for e-CSPY5 relative to e-CSPY10 was 358.71USD/QALY. All the ICER values were lower than the economic threshold of 2021 Chinese GDP (Gross Domestic Product) per capita in 2021(12554.42USD). Conclusions: It is worthwhile to popularize CRC screening in mainland China, as FIT always saving costs and colonoscopy is cost-effective. Regions with high income can take electronic colonoscopy every 10 years, or even every 5 years into consideration when determining the specific strategies.
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.