ArticleBMJ open2025
Optimising colorectal cancer screening strategies and target populations in budget-constrained regions through cost-effectiveness analysis: a case from eastern China.
Article in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- One- versus two-sample fecal immunochemical testing for colorectal cancer screening: a systematic review and meta-analysis of participation, diagnostic performance, and cost-effectiveness.BMC gastroenterology · 2026Pooled it
- Crystal Ball in a Blood's Drop: Unlocking Hidden Prognostic Power in the Neutrophil-to-Lymphocyte Ratio (NLR) and the Platelet-to-Lymphocyte Ratio (PLR) for Elderly Hip Fracture Patients.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe primary aim of this study was to optimise colorectal cancer (CRC) screening strategies and target populations in resource-limited areas through cost-effectiveness analysis, evaluating the best screening methods and appropriate screening ages.
designA prospective microsimulation model was used for cost-effectiveness analysis, calibrated with real-world data.
settingThe study was conducted in Huzhou City, Zhejiang Province, China, focusing on primary and secondary healthcare levels. Data were obtained from the Huzhou Center for Disease Control and Prevention.
participantsThe study included 418 805 local residents who participated in the Huzhou screening programme between 2020 and 2022. Inclusion criteria were individuals aged 45-100 years and residing in the local area.
interventionsFour initial screening methods were evaluated: single-sample immunochemical faecal occult blood test (iFOBT), double-sample iFOBT, single-sample iFOBT combined with a risk assessment questionnaire and double-sample iFOBT combined with a risk assessment questionnaire. Screening frequencies included annual and biennial intervals. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome measure was the cost per incremental quality-adjusted life year (QALY) for different screening strategies. Also, the impact on CRC incidence, related deaths, life years saved (LYS) and QALYs was considered.
resultsThe primary data were sourced from the Huzhou screening programme, which included 418 805 individuals from 2020 to 2022. All screening strategies were found to be effective, with the cost per incremental QALY being less than $1036, which is below the minimum standard for middle-income countries. The most effective screening strategy was the annual combined two-sample iFOBT and risk evaluation questionnaires. This approach led to a reduction in CRC incidence and related deaths by 2435 and 1174 cases per 100 000 individuals, respectively, and an increase in LYS by 13 903 years and QALYs by 35 564 years. The recommended ages to begin and end screening were 48 and 72 years, respectively.
conclusionsAll CRC screening strategies demonstrated effectiveness compared with non-screening, with the annual combined two-sample iFOBT and risk evaluation questionnaires emerging as the optimal approach. For additional regions, the best screening strategy can be selected based on the health outcomes and costs we have provided.
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.