Abstract
This systematic review assesses the choice of simulated screening strategies in cost-effectiveness analyses (CEA) of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening for average-risk populations. It examines the implications of strategy comparison for the identification of optimally cost-effective policies. The PubMed, Web of Science and Scopus databases were searched for model-based cost-effectiveness analysis simulations of CRC screening within average-risk populations. The interventions concerned are stool and image-based modalities of CRC screening. The analysis specifically focuses on the choice of comparisons made between screening strategies to estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Such ratios include the cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained or cost per life-year gained. The omission of relevant comparators and miscalculation of ICERs are the two main concerns that arose from this review. Of the reviewed studies, 87% reported results with sufficient significant figures to permit replication of ICER estimates while 76% reported the complete results for all assessed strategies. Regarding the ICERs calculation, 44% of studies reported ACERs as ICERs, 41% reported ICERs for dominated comparators, and 33% of CEAs calculated the ICERs on the basis of comparisons to dominated comparators. Approximately half (49%) of CEAs had any one of these problems. Most studies did not consider adequate screening comparators, including a limited variation in screening technologies (44%) and screening frequency (54%). Most CEAs (82%) did not simulate a sufficient large of the efficient frontier for the policy-relevant decision threshold. In addition, 5% of CEAs with sensitivity analysis evaluated some options not in the base-case analysis, and 8% excluded the no-screening option. We find the CRC screening literature to be lacking in consistent quality regarding both adequate reporting of cost-effectiveness estimates and, more fundamentally, the sufficient variation in screening alternatives simulated. This raises doubts regarding the certainty of evidence regarding optimal CRC screening policies.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have