ArticleFrontiers in oncology2025
Cost-effectiveness analysis of sequential two-step screening versus direct colonoscopy screening for colorectal cancer: a large-scale survey in Eastern China.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Cost-Effectiveness of Colonoscopy for Screening: What Matters Most?Gut and liver · 2026Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: Despite the implementation of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening programs in many regions worldwide over the past few decades, the cost-effectiveness of these programs has been questioned owing to their acceptance rates. In this study, we evaluated the cost-effectiveness of screening strategies, quantified the impact of colonoscopy acceptance rates, and analyzed the underlying factors driving individual preferences. Methods: The cost-effectiveness of three strategies-no screening, sequential two-step screening (fecal immunochemical test and risk assessment, followed by colonoscopy), and colonoscopy screening-was evaluated from a societal perspective. This assessment was conducted using a decision-tree Markov model with the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio as the primary evaluation criterion. Results: Sequential screening was more cost-effective than colonoscopy screening (19,335 vs. 27,379 United States dollars per quality-adjusted life year). Ideal sequential screening could prevent 32.2%(691/2147) CRC deaths, whereas colonoscopy screening at the same colonoscopy acceptance rate (20.3%) could prevent 17.6%(377/2147) CRC deaths. When the acceptance rate of direct colonoscopy surpasses the threshold of 37.2%, the resulting health benefits likely outweigh those achieved using a the sequential two-step screening approach. Conclusions: Sequential screening is recommended for individuals in areas with constrained screening resources or during the early stages of regional screening program implementation. However, once screening habits are established, transitioning to direct colonoscopy screening becomes more favorable. Notably, reducing colonoscopy costs is the principal factor for enhancing an individual's willingness to undergo the procedure.
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.