ArticleEndoscopy2025
Cost-effectiveness of colon capsule endoscopy in colorectal cancer screening: a modeling study.
Article in Endoscopy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Korean Colorectal Cancer Screening Guidelines for Asymptomatic, Average-Risk Adults: The 2025 Revision.Cancer research and treatment · 2026Pooled it
- Expected Values of Artificial Intelligence in Colon Capsule Endoscopy: Artificial Intelligence in Capsule Endoscopy Consortium Position Statement.Endoscopy international open · 2026Article
- Re-investigation rate following colon capsule endoscopy stratified by faecal haemoglobin concentration in a screening population.Therapeutic advances in gastroenterology · 2026Article
- Optimizing bowel preparation regimens for colon capsule endoscopy: an umbrella review (overview of systematic reviews).Therapeutic advances in gastrointestinal endoscopyArticle
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
Background: The most used primary colorectal cancer (CRC) screening tests are the fecal immunochemical test (FIT) and colonoscopy. However, colonoscopy is an invasive procedure with possible (fatal) complications and FIT has shortcomings in test sensitivity. Colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) could be an alternative, but long-term effects are unknown. We assessed the cost-effectiveness of CCE in CRC screening. Methods: We simulated a Dutch cohort born between 1938 and 1957 for eight strategies: biennial FIT screening with cutoffs of 15 (FIT15) and 47 (FIT47) micrograms of hemoglobin per gram feces (µg Hb/g); biennial and triennial CCE screening; CCE after a FIT-negative result of 15–47 µg Hb/g (CCE triage); CCE after positive FIT using 15 and 47 µg Hb/g cutoffs; and 10-yearly colonoscopy screening. Three adherence scenarios were considered. We estimated lifetime CRC incidence, mortality, life years gained, and number of tests required. A cost-effectiveness analysis was performed to determine cost-effectiveness of each strategy. Results: Triennial CCE and CCE triage screening had similar long-term outcomes to biennial FIT47. At 100% adherence, biennial CCE screening reduced CRC incidence from 79 to 49 cases (38.0% reduction) and mortality from 36 to 17 deaths (52.8% reduction) per 1000 individuals versus no screening. Life years gained increased to 155 per 1000 individuals versus 115 with biennial FIT47 (34.8% increase). However, these increases came at high financial cost, and CCE cost-effectiveness was dominated by biennial FIT and 10-yearly colonoscopy. Conclusion: CCE was not cost effective for CRC screening compared with biennial FIT and 10-yearly colonoscopy.
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.