ArticleFrontiers in public health2022
Cost-effectiveness analysis of a community-based colorectal cancer screening program in Shanghai, 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 7 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
7 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
- Efficacy and cost-effectiveness of extending risk-stratified colorectal cancer screening: evidence from China's first province-wide program.International journal of surgery (London, England) · 2026Article
- Article
- Article
- Cost-effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening under different scenarios of colonoscopy adherence: a microsimulation study.BMJ public health · 2025Article
- Nanotechnology in healthcare, and its safety and environmental risks.Journal of nanobiotechnology · 2024Review
- Applications of image-guided locoregional transarterial chemotherapy in patients with inoperable colorectal cancer: a review.Frontiers in oncology · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Since 2011, through the Community-Based Colorectal Cancer Screening Program in Shanghai, China (SHcsp), residents aged >50 years were offered initial colorectal cancer screening using the fecal immunochemical test (FIT) and risk assessment questionnaire (RAQ) for free. Colonoscopy was then recommended for positive results. Objective: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the Community-Based Colorectal Cancer Screening Program in Shanghai, China from the payer perspective. Methods: This analysis estimated the long-term cost and effectiveness of the 2014-2016 SHcsp based on real-world follow-up data from the SHcsp database, Shanghai Cancer Registry System, vital statistics from Shanghai Municipal Center for Disease Control and Prevention and inpatient CRC expense data from hospitals. A decision-tree model and Markov model were constructed to simulate the 25-year health outcomes. The screening branch was the cohort with a definite diagnosis of adenoma, advanced adenoma, and CRC. The other branch was residents who were neither screened nor treated until CRC symptoms appeared. A payer prospective was adopted to measure direct costs and effectiveness by life years (LYs) and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained, and were discounted by 3%. Stimulation robustness was tested by one-way sensitivity analysis. Results: Of 1,097,656 residents, 13,250 were diagnosed with adenoma, advanced adenoma, or CRC. Assuming those had not been found through screening, SHcsp resulted in 1,570.1 LYs and 13,984.3 QALYs gained at an extra cost of USD9.96 million. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was USD6,342.02 per LY and USD712.08 per QALY obtained, far below the threshold of USD59,598 of three-time GDP per capita in Shanghai. Conclusion: The SHcsp was cost-effective than no screening strategy. The results were generalisable to the Chinese population for mass CRC screening.
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.