Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39170890›Full record

ArticleHealth science reports2024

A systematic review of the economic burden of colorectal cancer.

Abdosaleh Jafari, Fatemeh A Hosseini, Faride S Jalali

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health science reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. miR-143-5p as a Prognostic Biomarker in Colorectal Cancer: Inhibition of Tumor Progression Through Targeting MYCBP.The Turkish journal of gastroenterology : the official journal of Turkish Society of Gastroenterology · 2026
    Article
  3. Observational
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Quality of Life of Emirati Women with Cervical Cancer Using EORTC QLQ-30 and CX24: A First Look in the UAE.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2025
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Efficacy and safety of darolutamideFrontiers in pharmacology · 2025
    Article
  13. Observational
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Abdosaleh JafariSchool of Health Management and Information Sciences, Health Human Resources Research Center Shiraz University of Medical Sciences Shiraz Iran.ORCID 0000-0003-3035-2798
Fatemeh A HosseiniStudent Research Committee Shiraz University of Medical Sciences Shiraz Iran.
Faride S JalaliSchool of Health Management and Information Sciences, Health Human Resources Research Center Shiraz University of Medical Sciences Shiraz Iran.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2009-840X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Colorectal cancer is the third most common cancer in the Western Hemisphere. It is the third most common cancer in men after prostate and lung cancers and the second most common cancer in women after breast cancer. According to some studies, the incidence and prevalence of colorectal cancer is increasing rapidly. Main Body: In the present study, a systematic review of the articles related to the economic burden of colorectal cancer was carried out. The articles were taken from the following databases: SID, Medline/Pubmed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, NHS Economic Evaluation Database (EED), Econlit, and Google Scholar. Furthermore, the PICOTS model was used to select the inclusion criteria. The quality of the articles' methodologies was evaluated using Drummond's checklist. Then, some data were extracted from relevant articles, in terms of year, place of research, sample size, costing approach, type of measured costs, average direct medical costs, average direct nonmedical costs, and average indirect costs. The data from 37 studies dealing with the costs of patients with colorectal cancer were extracted. Most of the studies were conducted in the United States, and the social perspective was the most common perspective to measure the costs. According to the majority of the studies, direct medical costs were considered the greatest driver in causing the economic burden of colorectal cancer. The costs of hospitalization, medicine, surgery, chemotherapy, and radiotherapy accounted for the largest share of direct medical costs, and the costs of transportation, accommodation, and home care were the greatest share of direct nonmedical costs. Furthermore, the costs associated with disability, absenteeism, and premature death were identified as the main drivers of indirect costs. Conclusion: The findings of this study showed that colorectal cancer imposes great direct and indirect costs on families, the health system, and society. The best way to deal with this disease and, hence, to reduce its economic burden is to take comprehensive preventive measures and modify the lifestyle. In addition, health policymakers can limit the costs of this disease by expanding the screening program.

Indexed as

colorectal cancercostcost of illnesseconomic burdenreview

Identifiers

PMID39170890
PMCPMC11336656

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.