ArticleAmerican journal of epidemiology2026
Risk-based guidance for choosing fecal immunochemical test or colonoscopy in colorectal cancer screening: a modeling study.
Article in American journal of epidemiology, 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In colorectal cancer (CRC) screening settings offering both colonoscopy and fecal immunochemical test (FIT), guidance on who should get colonoscopy could optimize resource use. This study aimed to identify efficient guidance strategies, maximizing quality-adjusted lifeyears (QALYs) gained for given colonoscopy demand. Using the MISCAN-Colon microsimulation model for Switzerland, we evaluated 3 strategy types: age-based, starting biennial FIT and switching to 10-yearly colonoscopy at a certain age; risk score-based, where only individuals with high CRC risk scores undergo colonoscopy; FIT-based, switching to colonoscopy after a quantitative FIT result just below the positivity cut-off and, in some strategies, also at a certain age. Reference strategies included (1) colonoscopy only and (2) equal proportions of individuals choosing FIT or colonoscopy at age 50. Age- and risk score-based strategies with switches or risk assessments at ages 54, 64, or 74 were efficient. Compared to the reference strategies, QALYs gained could increase by (1) 10.0% or (2) 6.7% without increasing colonoscopy demand. The FIT-based switching strategies were not efficient. Therefore, screening programs like those in Switzerland and the United States can improve efficiency by guiding individuals toward FIT or colonoscopy simply based on age. More complex approaches using prior FITs or risk scores would not outperform age-based approaches.
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.