ArticleJournal of the National Cancer Institute2026
The triple effect of colorectal cancer screening: reducing deaths, government spending, and mortality disparities.
Article in Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Abstract
Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening accounts for over 60% of cancer screening costs in the United States, prompting recurrent debates about its value. Yet CRC screening remains the main tool to curb overall CRC incidence, mortality, and disparities that affect Black Americans. Using the race-specific CRC-SPIN microsimulation model, we show that CRC screening in the United States simultaneously achieves three goals: it saves lives by preventing 24 deaths per 1000 Black Americans screened with the fecal immunochemical test (FIT) and 26 screened with colonoscopy; saves tax dollars by shifting costs from Medicare to private payers; and reduces racial incidence and mortality disparities, helping offset disparities in CRC survival. Both FIT and colonoscopy screening are cost-effective relative to no screening, with annual FIT remaining the most cost-effective option. Changes to policy requiring coverage of preventive care services must avoid compromising the effectiveness of CRC screening-arguably the greatest equalizer of cancer disparities.
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.