ArticleJournal of health economics and outcomes research2026
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Annual vs Biennial Fecal Immunochemical Testing for Colorectal Cancer Screening in Japan: A Microsimulation Analysis.
Article in Journal of health economics and outcomes research, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The optimal screening interval for fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) in Japan remains uncertain. Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of biennial FIT screening compared with annual FIT screening to inform future national guidelines. Methods: We developed a microsimulation model of a cohort of 100 000 average-risk Japanese individuals aged 40 years and older followed over a 60-year horizon from a healthcare payer perspective. Two screening methods were compared: the current annual FIT and biennial FIT. Effectiveness was measured in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and costs were measured in 2024 Japanese yen. Results: Annual FIT screening was dominant, resulting in lower total costs (¥408 058 vs. ¥451 407) and higher QALYs (26.483 vs 26.440) compared with biennial screening. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicated that annual screening was cost-effective in 92.7% of iterations at a WTP threshold of ¥5 million per QALY. Conclusions: The analysis indicated that annual FIT screening was dominant over biennial screening, because of its lower costs and higher QALY yield. These findings were supported by probabilistic sensitivity analysis. Although annual FIT screening is generally superior to biennial screening in Japan and provides greater health benefits at lower costs, future policies should aim to address endoscopic capacity constraints to ensure program sustainability.
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.