ArticleGut and liver2026
Cost-Effectiveness of Colonoscopy for Screening: What Matters Most?
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.
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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.