ArticleJournal of Korean medical science2024
Cost-Utility Analysis for Colorectal Cancer Screening According to the Initiating Age of National Cancer Screening Program in Korea.
Article in Journal of Korean medical science, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- From "When" to "Ready": Preparing for Primary Colonoscopy in the Korean National Colorectal Cancer Screening Program.Journal of Korean medical science · 2026Article
- Population-based screening colonoscopy in Korea: balancing benefits and limitations.Intestinal research · 2026Review
- A Clinicopathologic, Molecular, and Prognostic Comparison Between Early- and Late-Onset Colorectal Cancer in Korea: A Single-Center Retrospective Cohort Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence alert system based on intraluminal view for colonoscopy intubation.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Key Risk Factors, Sex Differences, and the Influence of High-Intensity Exercise on Colorectal Carcinogenesis: A 10-Year Cohort Study Based on 1,120,377 Individuals from the NHISS Data.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2024Article
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
Abstract
backgroundThis study aimed to identify the most cost-effective strategy for colorectal cancer screening using the fecal immunochemical test (FIT), focusing on screening initiation age in Korea.
methodsWe designed Markov simulation models targeting individuals aged 40 years or older. Twelve strategies combining screening initiation ages (40, 45, or 50 years old), termination ages (80 or no limit), and intervals (1 or 2 years) were modeled, and the most cost-effective strategy was selected. The robustness of the results was confirmed using one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. Furthermore, the cost-effectiveness of the qualitative and quantitative FIT methods was verified using scenario analysis.
resultsThe 2-year interval strategy with a screening age range of 45-80 years was the most cost-effective (incremental cost-utility ratio = KRW 7,281,646/quality adjusted life years). The most sensitive variables in the results were transition rate from advanced adenoma to local cancer and discount rate. The uncertainty in the model was substantially low. Moreover, strategies starting at the age of 40 years were also cost-effective but considered suboptimal. The scenario analysis showed that there was no significant difference in cost-effectiveness between strategies with various relative screening ratio of quantitative and qualitative method.
conclusionThe screening method for advancing the initiation age, as presented in the 2015 revised national screening recommendations, was superior regarding cost-effectiveness. This study provides a new paradigm for the development of a national cancer screening system in Korea, which can be utilized as a scientific basis for economic evaluations.
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.