ArticleGastro hep advances2026
Optimizing Colonoscopy Capacity to Maximize Colorectal Cancer Outcomes.
Article in Gastro hep advances, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Aims: Guidelines support endoscopic and stool-based testing for average-risk colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, but colonoscopy capacity is limited. With an aim to screen all eligible individuals, we identified scenarios that maximized the benefits of colonoscopy utilization for both screening and follow-up of noninvasive screening. Methods: Annual current screening modality distribution in the United States was modeled. Clinical outcomes and costs were compared between the current distribution and alternative scenarios that substituted initial colonoscopy screening with stool-based tests, such that the total number of follow-up colonoscopies after positive stool-based tests plus screening colonoscopies would maintain the full colonoscopy capacity. Results: To screen all eligible individuals in the United States (58.3 million) and utilize full colonoscopy capacity (15 million/y), stool-based tests must increase 2.4-fold, follow-up colonoscopies after positive stool-based tests must increase from the current 9% of capacity to 22% (1.4-3.3 million), and screening colonoscopies must decrease from the current 33% of capacity to 20% (4.9-3.0 million). In this optimal screening modality distribution scenario, the number of detected CRC cases would increase by 84% vs current distribution (185,710 vs 100,860), 49% more CRC cases would be prevented (83,299 vs 55,897), total CRC costs (ie, CRC screening, treatment, and savings from CRC prevented) would decrease from $117.8 billion to $110.6 billion, and colonoscopy revenue would increase from $13.4 billion to $13.9 billion due to a higher proportion of therapeutic procedures with polypectomy. Conclusion: Reallocating indications for colonoscopies by substituting some screening colonoscopies with follow-up colonoscopies-while performing at full capacity-along with a shift in initial CRC screening modalities to more stool-based testing, could increase health benefits, maximize colonoscopy efficiency and revenue, and reduce expenditures.
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.