IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0167452.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Cost Effectiveness of Screening Colonoscopy Depends on Adequate Bowel Preparation Rates – A Modeling Study

Author

Listed:
  • James Kingsley
  • Siddharth Karanth
  • Frances Lee Revere
  • Deepak Agrawal

Abstract

Background: Inadequate bowel preparation during screening colonoscopy necessitates repeating colonoscopy. Studies suggest inadequate bowel preparation rates of 20–60%. This increases the cost of colonoscopy for our society. Aim: The aim of this study is to determine the impact of inadequate bowel preparation rate on the cost effectiveness of colonoscopy compared to other screening strategies for colorectal cancer (CRC). Methods: A microsimulation model of CRC screening strategies for the general population at average risk for CRC. The strategies include fecal immunochemistry test (FIT) every year, colonoscopy every ten years, sigmoidoscopy every five years, or stool DNA test every 3 years. The screening could be performed at private practice offices, outpatient hospitals, and ambulatory surgical centers. Results: At the current assumed inadequate bowel preparation rate of 25%, the cost of colonoscopy as a screening strategy is above society’s willingness to pay (

Suggested Citation

  • James Kingsley & Siddharth Karanth & Frances Lee Revere & Deepak Agrawal, 2016. "Cost Effectiveness of Screening Colonoscopy Depends on Adequate Bowel Preparation Rates – A Modeling Study," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(12), pages 1-17, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0167452
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0167452
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0167452
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0167452&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0167452?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Sandjar Djalalov & Linda Rabeneck & George Tomlinson & Karen E. Bremner & Robert Hilsden & Jeffrey S. Hoch, 2014. "A Review and Meta-analysis of Colorectal Cancer Utilities," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 34(6), pages 809-818, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. S Lucas Goede & Linda Rabeneck & Marjolein van Ballegooijen & Ann G Zauber & Lawrence F Paszat & Jeffrey S Hoch & Jean H E Yong & Sonja Kroep & Jill Tinmouth & Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar, 2017. "Harms, benefits and costs of fecal immunochemical testing versus guaiac fecal occult blood testing for colorectal cancer screening," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(3), pages 1-15, March.
    2. Michael J. Zoratti & A. Simon Pickard & Peep F. M. Stalmeier & Daniel Ollendorf & Andrew Lloyd & Kelvin K W Chan & Don Husereau & John E. Brazier & Murray Krahn & Mitchell Levine & Lehana Thabane & Fe, 2021. "Evaluating the conduct and application of health utility studies: a review of critical appraisal tools and reporting checklists," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 22(5), pages 723-733, July.
    3. Jiryoun Gong & Juhee Han & Donghwan Lee & Seungjin Bae, 2020. "A Meta-Regression Analysis of Utility Weights for Breast Cancer: The Power of Patients’ Experience," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(24), pages 1-16, December.
    4. Tristan M Snowsill & Neil A J Ryan & Emma J Crosbie & Ian M Frayling & D Gareth Evans & Chris J Hyde, 2019. "Cost-effectiveness analysis of reflex testing for Lynch syndrome in women with endometrial cancer in the UK setting," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(8), pages 1-18, August.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0167452. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.