ReviewHealth economics review2026
A methodological analysis of systematic reviews of cost-effectiveness in screening, diagnosis, and treatment of colorectal cancer.
Review in Health economics review, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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
introductionEconomic evaluations are essential for informing decisions on colorectal cancer screening, diagnosis, and treatment. However, substantial methodological variability across studies challenges the comparability and interpretation of cost-effectiveness evidence.
objectiveTo identify, characterize, and critically analyze systematic reviews of economic evaluations in colorectal cancer, emphasizing their methodological characteristics and reporting practices.
methodsWe conducted a thorough search across multiple databases to identify systematic reviews published until 2025 that synthesized comprehensive economic evaluations (cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analyses) of colorectal interventions. We extracted data on intervention type (screening, diagnosis, treatment), model structure, time horizon, analytical perspective, discounting, handling of uncertainty, and model validation. We applied an integrated framework based on established methodological and reporting criteria. Findings were synthesized narratively.
resultsWe included 20 systematic reviews, covering screening, diagnostic, and treatment strategies. Most economic evaluations used Markov or microsimulation models with lifetime horizons and discount rates ranging from 3% to 5%. The healthcare system perspective predominated, while societal perspectives were less frequently applied. Across domains, substantial heterogeneity was observed in comparators, modeling assumptions, cost inputs, and outcome measures. Screening studies showed the greatest variability, particularly in comparator selection and adherence assumptions. Although sensitivity analyses were commonly reported, formal model validation was infrequent. These findings are consistent with previous reviews, which have shown that colorectal cancer interventions are generally cost-effective but that variability in model assumptions limits the identification of optimal strategies.
conclusionsSystematic reviews of economic evaluations in colorectal cancer report widespread use of advanced modeling techniques and sensitivity analyses; however, significant limitations remain regarding validation, transparency, and methodological standardization. Improving reporting practices and enhancing model validation are essential to improve the reliability and policy relevance of economic evidence in colorectal cancer.
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.