The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Cost-effectiveness of Colorectal Cancer Screening
Open accessAbstract
Colorectal cancer is an important public health problem. Several screening methods have been shown to be effective in reducing colorectal cancer mortality. The objective of this review was to assess the cost-effectiveness of the different colorectal cancer screening methods and to determine the preferred method from a cost-effectiveness point of view. Five databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry, the British National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database, and the lists of technology assessments of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services) were searched for cost-effectiveness analyses published in English between January 1993 and December 2009. Fifty-five publications relating to 32 unique cost-effectiveness models were identified. All studies found that colorectal cancer screening was cost-effective or even cost-saving compared with no screening. However, the studies disagreed as to which screening method was most effective or had the best incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for a given willingness to pay per life-year gained. There was agreement among studies that the newly developed screening tests of stool DNA testing, computed tomographic colonography, and capsule endoscopy were not yet cost-effective compared with the established screening options.
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
Recommendations of the Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine
Weinstein, M. C. (1996) · JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association · doi:10.1001/jama.1996.03540150055031 · Cited by 2,455 · cited 3×
“Although no more than 2 of 5 models could agree on the preferred colorectal cancer screening strategy at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50,000 with original model assumptions in the Institute of Medicine workshop, all 5 models recommended the same screening strategy with standardized model assumptions (58).”
Background
Cited by
Brenner, H., Kloor, M., & Pox, C. P. (2014) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(13)61649-9 · Cited by 2,762
Self-citationColorectal cancer screening: a global overview of existing programmes
Schreuders, E. H., Ruco, A., Rabeneck, L., Schoen, R. E., Sung, J. J. Y., Young, G. P., & Kuipers, E. J. (2015) · Gut · doi:10.1136/gutjnl-2014-309086 · Cited by 1,328
Strategies for Colorectal Cancer Screening
Ladabaum, U., Dominitz, J. A., Kahi, C., & Schoen, R. E. (2020) · Gastroenterology · doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2019.06.043 · Cited by 696
Colonoscopy screening and surveillance guidelines
Saito, Y., Oka, S., Kawamura, T., Shimoda, R., Sekiguchi, M., Tamai, N., Hotta, K., Matsuda, T., Misawa, M., Tanaka, S., et al. (2021) · Digestive Endoscopy · doi:10.1111/den.13972 · Cited by 170
Patel, S. G., Schoenfeld, P., Kim, H. M., Ward, E. K., Bansal, A., Kim, Y., Hosford, L., Myers, A., Foster, S., Craft, J., et al. (2016) · Gastroenterology · doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2015.10.042 · Cited by 87
Metadata
- Authors
- Lansdorp-Vogelaar, I., Knudsen, A. B., & Brenner, H.
- Venue
- Epidemiologic Reviews
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2011-06-01
- Volume
- 33
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 88-100
- ISSN
- 0193-936X (ISSN-L)
- 1478-6729
- OpenAlex
- W2164862736
- Cited by
- 297
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 8.82
- 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: Cost-effectiveness of Colorectal Cancer Screening. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/epirev/mxr004
- The paper
- Lansdorp-Vogelaar, I., Knudsen, A. B., & Brenner, H. (2011). Cost-effectiveness of Colorectal Cancer Screening. Epidemiologic Reviews. https://doi.org/10.1093/epirev/mxr004
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.
