The DOI matches its Crossref record; 60 of the 60 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Estimation of Benefits, Burden, and Harms of Colorectal Cancer Screening Strategies: Modeling Study for the US Preventive Services Task Force
Open accessAbstract
IMPORTANCE: The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) is updating its 2008 colorectal cancer (CRC) screening recommendations. OBJECTIVE: To inform the USPSTF by modeling the benefits, burden, and harms of CRC screening strategies; estimating the optimal ages to begin and end screening; and identifying a set of model-recommendable strategies that provide similar life-years gained (LYG) and a comparable balance between LYG and screening burden. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Comparative modeling with 3 microsimulation models of a hypothetical cohort of previously unscreened US 40-year-olds with no prior CRC diagnosis. EXPOSURES: Screening with sensitive guaiac-based fecal occult blood testing, fecal immunochemical testing (FIT), multitarget stool DNA testing, flexible sigmoidoscopy with or without stool testing, computed tomographic colonography (CTC), or colonoscopy starting at age 45, 50, or 55 years and ending at age 75, 80, or 85 years. Screening intervals varied by modality. Full adherence for all strategies was assumed. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Life-years gained compared with no screening (benefit), lifetime number of colonoscopies required (burden), lifetime number of colonoscopy complications (harms), and ratios of incremental burden and benefit (efficiency ratios) per 1000 40-year-olds. RESULTS: The screening strategies provided LYG in the range of 152 to 313 per 1000 40-year-olds. Lifetime colonoscopy burden per 1000 persons ranged from fewer than 900 (FIT every 3 years from ages 55-75 years) to more than 7500 (colonoscopy screening every 5 years from ages 45-85 years). Harm from screening was at most 23 complications per 1000 persons screened. Strategies with screening beginning at age 50 years generally provided more LYG as well as more additional LYG per additional colonoscopy than strategies with screening beginning at age 55 years. There were limited empirical data to support a start age of 45 years. For persons adequately screened up to age 75 years, additional screening yielded small increases in LYG relative to the increase in colonoscopy burden. With screening from ages 50 to 75 years, 4 strategies yielded a comparable balance of screening burden and similar LYG (median LYG per 1000 across the models): colonoscopy every 10 years (270 LYG); sigmoidoscopy every 10 years with annual FIT (256 LYG); CTC every 5 years (248 LYG); and annual FIT (244 LYG). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this microsimulation modeling study of a previously unscreened population undergoing CRC screening that assumed 100% adherence, the strategies of colonoscopy every 10 years, annual FIT, sigmoidoscopy every 10 years with annual FIT, and CTC every 5 years performed from ages 50 through 75 years provided similar LYG and a comparable balance of benefit and screening burden.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Reducing Mortality from Colorectal Cancer by Screening for Fecal Occult Blood
Mandel, J. S., Bond, J. H., Church, T. R., Snover, D. C., Bradley, G. M., Schuman, L. M., & Ederer, F. (1993) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm199305133281901 · Cited by 3,229
Randomised controlled trial of faecal-occult-blood screening for colorectal cancer
Hardcastle, J. D., Chamberlain, J. O., Robinson, M. H., Moss, S. M., Amar, S. S., Balfour, T. W., James, P. D., & Mangham, C. M. (1996) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(96)03386-7 · Cited by 2,793
Screening for Colorectal Cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement
US Preventive Services Task Force, Bibbins-Domingo, K., Grossman, D. C., Curry, S. J., Davidson, K. W., Epling, J. W., García, F. A. R., Gillman, M. W., Harper, D. M., Kemper, A. R., et al. (2016) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2016.5989 · Cited by 2,509
Randomised study of screening for colorectal cancer with faecal-occult-blood test
Kronborg, O., Fenger, C., Olsen, J., Jørgensen, O. D., & Søndergaard, O. (1996) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(96)03430-7 · Cited by 2,501
Screening for Colorectal Cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement
U.S. Preventive Services Task Force* (2008) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-149-9-200811040-00243 · Cited by 1,959
Multitarget Stool DNA Testing for Colorectal-Cancer Screening
Imperiale, T. F., Ransohoff, D. F., Itzkowitz, S. H., Levin, T. R., Lavin, P., Lidgard, G. P., Ahlquist, D. A., & Berger, B. M. (2014) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa1311194 · Cited by 1,900
Atkin, W. S., Edwards, R., Kralj-Hans, I., Wooldrage, K., Hart, A. R., Northover, J. M., Parkin, D. M., Wardle, J., Duffy, S. W., & Cuzick, J. (2010) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(10)60551-x · Cited by 1,623
Long-term colorectal-cancer incidence and mortality after lower endoscopy
Nishihara, R., Wu, K., Lochhead, P., Morikawa, T., Liao, X., Qian, Z. R., Inamura, K., Kim, S. A., Kuchiba, A., Yamauchi, M., et al. (2013) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa1301969 · Cited by 1,483
Polyp Miss Rate Determined by Tandem Colonoscopy: A Systematic Review
van Rijn, J. C., Reitsma, J. B., Stoker, J., Bossuyt, P. M., van Deventer, S. J., & Dekker, E. (2006) · The American Journal of Gastroenterology · doi:10.1111/j.1572-0241.2006.00390.x · Cited by 1,344
Association of Colonoscopy and Death From Colorectal Cancer
Baxter, N. N., Goldwasser, M. A., Paszat, L. F., Saskin, R., Urbach, D. R., & Rabeneck, L. (2009) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-150-1-200901060-00306 · Cited by 1,254
Cited by
Screening for Colorectal Cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement
US Preventive Services Task Force, Bibbins-Domingo, K., Grossman, D. C., Curry, S. J., Davidson, K. W., Epling, J. W., García, F. A. R., Gillman, M. W., Harper, D. M., Kemper, A. R., et al. (2016) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2016.5989 · Cited by 2,509
Wolf, A. M. D., Fontham, E. T. H., Church, T. R., Flowers, C. R., Guerra, C. E., LaMonte, S. J., Etzioni, R., McKenna, M. T., Oeffinger, K. C., Shih, Y. T., et al. (2018) · CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians · doi:10.3322/caac.21457 · Cited by 1,944
Lin, J. S., Bowles, E. J. A., Williams, S. B., & Morrison, C. C. (2017) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2017.0562 · Cited by 1,082
Colorectal Cancer Incidence Patterns in the United States, 1974–2013
Siegel, R. L., Fedewa, S. A., Anderson, W. F., Miller, K. D., Ma, J., Rosenberg, P. S., & Jemal, A. (2017) · JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute · doi:10.1093/jnci/djw322 · Cited by 1,002
ACG Clinical Guidelines: Colorectal Cancer Screening 2021
Shaukat, A., Kahi, C. J., Burke, C. A., Rabeneck, L., Sauer, B. G., & Rex, D. K. (2021) · American Journal of Gastroenterology · doi:10.14309/ajg.0000000000001122 · Cited by 853
Metadata
- Authors
- Knudsen, A. B., Zauber, A. G., Rutter, C. M., Naber, S. K., Doria-Rose, V. P., Pabiniak, C., Johanson, C., Fischer, S. E., Lansdorp-Vogelaar, I., & Kuntz, K. M.
- Venue
- JAMA
- Publisher
- American Medical Association (AMA)
- Published
- 2016-06-21
- Volume
- 315
- Issue
- 23
- Pages
- 2595
- ISSN
- 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
- 0098-7484
- OpenAlex
- W2443966614
- Cited by
- 474
- References
- 60
- FWCI
- 26.73
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Estimation of Benefits, Burden, and Harms of Colorectal Cancer Screening Strategies: Modeling Study for the US Preventive Services Task Force. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/jama.2016.6828
- The paper
- Knudsen, A. B., Zauber, A. G., Rutter, C. M., Naber, S. K., Doria-Rose, V. P., Pabiniak, C., Johanson, C., Fischer, S. E., Lansdorp-Vogelaar, I., & Kuntz, K. M. (2016). Estimation of Benefits, Burden, and Harms of Colorectal Cancer Screening Strategies: Modeling Study for the US Preventive Services Task Force. JAMA. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2016.6828
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.