Here are four things to know.
1. The study authors aimed to compare the cost-effectiveness of CT colonography and colonoscopy screening by using data on unit costs and participation rates from a randomized controlled screening trial in a dedicated screening setting.
2. The authors used observed participation rates and screening costs from the Colonoscopy or Colonography for Screening trial in a microsimulation model to estimate costs and quality-adjusted life-years gained with colonoscopy and CT colonography screening.
3. The participation rates for colonoscopy and CT colonography were 21.5 percent —1,276 of 5,924 trial participants — and 33.6 percent — 982 of 2,920 participants —respectively.
4. Colonoscopy was more cost-effective in screening strategies with one or two lifetime screenings. CT colonography was more cost-effective in strategies with more lifetime screenings.
More articles on gastroenterology:
GI leader to know: Dr. Fred Fowler of Carolina Digestive
Exact Sciences names Mayo Clinic’s Dr. Paul Limburg co-CMO — 3 insights
ASGE also rejects Kaiser Health News story alleging lack of safety at ASCs
At the Becker's 23rd Annual Spine, Orthopedic and Pain Management-Driven ASC + The Future of Spine Conference, taking place June 11-13 in Chicago, spine surgeons, orthopedic leaders and ASC executives will come together to explore minimally invasive techniques, ASC growth strategies and innovations shaping the future of outpatient spine care. Apply for complimentary registration now.
