ArticleJAMA network open2025
Modeled Cost-Effectiveness of a Rideshare Program to Facilitate Colonoscopy Completion.
Article in JAMA network open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- CRC-SPIN version 3.0: an updated policy model for colorectal cancer screening that includes the serrated pathway.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2026Article
- The Best Screening Test Is the One That Gets Followed-Up On.Gastroenterology · 2026Article
- The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and others misunderstand stool testing for colorectal cancer.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Importance: In colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, too many patients fail to receive follow-up colonoscopy after an abnormal fecal immunochemical test (FIT), and transportation is a frequently reported barrier. Objective: To determine the outcomes and cost-effectiveness of providing a rideshare intervention to patients with abnormal FIT results. Design, Setting, and Participants: The CRC-Simulated Population Model for Incidence and Natural History microsimulation model was used to simulate the outcomes and cost-effectiveness of a rideshare intervention to improve colonoscopy completion in a population-based CRC screening program. Cohorts were adherent to annual FIT-based screening; baseline analyses assumed that 35% would complete a follow-up colonoscopy. Data were analyzed from November 14, 2023, to July 8, 2025. Intervention: A $40 or $100 rideshare to increase completion of follow-up colonoscopy. Main Outcomes and Measures: Lifetime outcomes included the number of CRC cases, deaths, and life-years gained (LYG) per 1000 people screened and costs associated with improved completion of a colonoscopy after an abnormal FIT result. Results: Four single-age cohorts (ages 45, 55, 65, and 70 years on January 1, 2024) of 10 million people each were simulated. In cohorts with similar sex distribution as the US population (aged 45 years, 50.0% male; aged 55 years, 49.4% male); aged 65 years, 48.0% male; and aged 70 years, 46.9% male), compared with no intervention, using a rideshare intervention starting at age 45 years that costs $100 per ride to increase colonoscopy completion from 35% to 70% was associated with a reduction in CRC cases per 1000 by 26.3% (30.7 vs 41.6 cases per 1000), CRC deaths per 1000 by 32.5% (9.8 vs 14.6 cases per 1000), 24.9 LYG per 1000, and at $100 per ride cost $43 308 per 1000 people screened and saved $330 587 per 1000 people screened. Conclusions and Relevance: In a microsimulation model, increasing colonoscopy completion in a population with abnormal FIT results via a rideshare intervention was cost saving up to $100 per ride due to the combined outcome of cancer prevention and early detection.
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.