Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41787975›Full record

ArticleGut and liver2026

Cost-Effectiveness of Colonoscopy for Screening: What Matters Most?

Fumiaki Ishibashi, Sho Suzuki

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Gut and liver, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Fumiaki IshibashiDepartment of Gastroenterology, International University of Health and Welfare Ichikawa Hospital, Ichikawa, Japan.ORCID 0000-0003-4065-7958
Sho SuzukiDepartment of Gastroenterology, International University of Health and Welfare Ichikawa Hospital, Ichikawa, Japan.ORCID 0000-0003-4831-1409

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a leading cause of cancer-related deaths worldwide. Worldwide, population-based systematic screening programs for the disease, which is essential to address this burden, rely primarily on fecal immunochemical testing (FIT). However, this test has multiple limitations, including an inability to detect right-sided CRCs and low individual adherence to follow-up colonoscopy among those with positive FIT results. Thus, primary colonoscopy screening is currently being explored as a more reliable strategy. Although randomized controlled trials published to date have not conclusively demonstrated beneficial effects of colonoscopy screening on mortality, limited evidence has suggested that improved participation rates in such programs may increase their effectiveness. That said, the evaluation of cost-effectiveness is another critical consideration when assessing these programs. To date, 11 simulation studies have compared the cost-effectiveness of colonoscopy-based screening with alternative strategies, of which six found that the colonoscopy-based screening strategy to be more cost-effective. Notably, among seven studies that assessed strategies based on repeat colonoscopies at regular intervals, five demonstrated favorable cost-effectiveness. However, among the 11 simulation studies, only five modeled the adenoma-carcinoma sequence, and only three accounted for interval cancers, limiting their clinical applicability. Moreover, repeated colonoscopy screening may increase the total number of procedures, potentially straining healthcare resources. Thus, in addition to evaluating mortality reduction, careful consideration of cost-effectiveness is essential in assessing the feasibility of implementing colonoscopy screening programs in public health practice.

Indexed as

ColonoscopyColorectal NeoplasmsEarly Detection of CancerMass ScreeningCost-Benefit AnalysisCost-Effectiveness AnalysisHumansColonoscopyColorectal neoplasmsCost-effectiveness analysisScreening

Identifiers

PMID41787975
PMCPMC13180512

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.