Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 648

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Cost-effectiveness of Screening for Colorectal Cancer in the General Population

Frazier, A. Lindsay·2000·JAMA

Abstract

CONTEXT: A recent expert panel recommended that persons at average risk of colorectal cancer (CRC) begin screening for CRC at age 50 years using 1 of several strategies. However, many aspects of different CRC screening strategies remain uncertain. OBJECTIVE: To assess the consequences, costs, and cost-effectiveness of CRC screening in average-risk individuals. DESIGN: Cost-effectiveness analysis from a societal perspective using a Markov model. SUBJECTS: Hypothetical subjects representative of the 50-year-old US population at average risk for CRC. SETTING: Simulated clinical practice in the United States. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Discounted lifetime costs, life expectancy, and incremental cost-effectiveness (CE) ratio, compared used 22 different CRC screening strategies, including those recommended by the expert panel. RESULTS: In 1 base-case analysis, compliance was assumed to be 60% with the initial screen and 80% with follow-up or surveillance colonoscopy. The most effective strategy for white men was annual rehydrated fecal occult blood testing (FOBT) plus sigmoidoscopy (followed by colonoscopy if either a low- or high-risk polyp was found) every 5 years from age 50 to 85 years, which resulted in a 60% reduction in cancer incidence and an 80% reduction in CRC mortality compared with no screening, and an incremental CE ratio of $92,900 per year of life gained compared with annual unrehydrated FOBT plus sigmoidoscopy every 5 years. In a base-case analysis in which compliance with screening and follow-up is assumed to be 100%, screening more often than every 10 years was prohibitively expensive; annual rehydrated FOBT plus sigmoidoscopy every 5 years had an incremental CE ratio of $489,900 per life-year gained compared with the same strategy every 10 years. Other strategies recommended by the expert panel were either less effective or cost more per year of life gained than the alternatives. Colonoscopy every 10 years was less effective than the combination of annual FOBT plus sigmoidoscopy every 5 years. However, a single colonoscopy at age 55 years achieves nearly half of the reduction in CRC mortality obtainable with colonoscopy every 10 years. Because of increased life expectancy among white women and increased cancer mortality among blacks, CRC screening was even more cost-effective in these groups than in white men. CONCLUSIONS: Screening for CRC, even in the setting of imperfect compliance, significantly reduces CRC mortality at costs comparable to other cancer screening procedures. However, compliance rates significantly affect the incremental CE ratios. In this model of CRC, 60% compliance with an every 5-year schedule of screening was roughly equivalent to 100% compliance with an every 10-year schedule. Mathematical modeling used to inform clinical guidelines needs to take into account expected compliance rates. JAMA. 2000;284:1954-1961.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jama.284.15.1954

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Cited by

See all 648

Metadata

Authors
Frazier, A. L.
Venue
JAMA
Published
2000-10-18
Volume
284
Issue
15
Pages
1954
ISSN
  • 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
  • 0098-7484
OpenAlex
W2137632872
Cited by
648
References
1
FWCI
19.04
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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: Cost-effectiveness of Screening for Colorectal Cancer in the General Population. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/jama.284.15.1954
The paper
Frazier, A. L. (2000). Cost-effectiveness of Screening for Colorectal Cancer in the General Population. JAMA. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.284.15.1954

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.