ArticleResearch square2025
Cost-Effectiveness of Colorectal Cancer Screening in the Dominican Republic.
Article in Research square, 2025. 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence is increasing worldwide, particularly in middle-income Caribbean countries like the Dominican Republic (DR), where CRC is now the third-most prevalent cancer. Despite this trend, no national or regional CRC screening guidelines exist across the Caribbean region, and screening is not routinely performed in the DR. In this study, we evaluated the cost-effectiveness of four CRC screening strategies versus no screening. Methods: We developed a Markov model of CRC to compare no screening (natural history, NH) to four screening strategies: colonoscopy every ten years (Colo), sigmoidoscopy every five years (Sig), biennial fecal immunohistochemical test (FIT), and biennial fecal occult blood test (FOBT), from age 45 to 75. Model inputs were derived from international trials, GLOBOCAN, SEER, and local data. We assumed 60.6% adherence to screening for all strategies. The primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) per disability adjusted life year (DALY) averted. Secondary outcomes included CRC incidence, mortality, and number of lifetime colonoscopies. Findings: In the NH strategy, 2.3% developed and 1.0% died from CRC, with a lifetime cost of $73.89 per person. FIT reduced CRC incidence by 30% and death by 37%, with a lifetime cost of $101.39 and ICER of $2,134.75 per DALY averted. Colo was more effective, reducing CRC incidence by 50% and death by 52%, but exceeded the willingness-to-pay threshold (ICER: $12,903.51). FIT required 371 lifetime colonoscopies per 1,000 people vs. 1,953 for Colo. Results were most sensitive to screening test performance and test costs. Interpretation: Biennial FIT is a cost-effective CRC screening option for the DR, averting a significant number of CRC cases and deaths at low incremental cost. Inclusion of local data on effectiveness and acceptability of CRC screening modalities would strengthen results. These findings can inform development of CRC screening guidelines in the DR and the wider Caribbean region.
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.