ArticleDEN open2026
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Fecal Immunochemical Test- and Colonoscopy-based Colorectal Cancer Screening across Varying Uptake Rates.
Article in DEN open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Ten Recommendations for Modelling Cost Effectiveness of Screening: Perspectives of an International Stakeholder Group.PharmacoEconomics · 2026Review
- Article
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
Objectives: To reduce the burden of colorectal cancer (CRC), identifying cost-effective screening strategies with particular attention to screening adherence is essential. We aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of screening strategies using fecal immunochemical test (FIT) and/or total colonoscopy (TCS) through simulation model analyses using Japanese data, considering various uptake rates. Methods: A state-transition Markov model was used to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of FIT-based, TCS-based, and combined FIT- and TCS-based screening strategies. Variable uptake rates for FIT (40%-80%), screening TCS (10%-80%), and TCS following a positive FIT (70%-90%) were assessed. Analyses were performed from the healthcare payer's perspective, evaluating direct medical costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Scenario analyses assuming substantially higher treatment costs for advanced CRC and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) for key parameters were also conducted. Results: Base-case analyses demonstrated that higher screening uptake improved cost-effectiveness across all strategies, with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) below the 5,000,000 JPY threshold. In FIT-based screening, increased uptake of TCS following a positive FIT improved QALYs and reduced costs. TCS-based screening became more cost-effective than FIT-based screening when screening uptake was high (≥60%), with ICERs below the threshold; at lower uptake levels, FIT-based screening remained superior. The combined strategy also required high uptake of screening TCS to surpass FIT-based screening in cost-effectiveness. Scenario analyses and PSA confirmed similar trends. Discussion: Our analyses highlight the critical impact of uptake rates on the cost-effectiveness of CRC screening. Under currently realistic uptake conditions, FIT-based screening remains the most cost-effective strategy.
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.