↓ Skip to main content

Cost-effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening in Ukraine

Overview of attention for article published in Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation, June 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#33 of 221)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (78th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
18 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Cost-effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening in Ukraine
Published in
Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation, June 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12962-018-0104-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nelya Melnitchouk, Djøra I. Soeteman, Jennifer S. Davids, Adam Fields, Joshua Cohen, Farzad Noubary, Andrey Lukashenko, Olena O. Kolesnik, Karen M. Freund

Abstract

Colorectal cancer is one of the most common cancers worldwide and is associated with high mortality when detected at a later stage. There is a paucity of studies from low and middle income countries to support the cost-effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening. We aim to analyze the cost-effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening compared to no screening in Ukraine, a lower-middle income country. We developed a deterministic Markov cohort model to assess the cost-effectiveness of three colorectal cancer screening strategies [fecal occult blood test (FOBT) every year, flexible sigmoidoscopy with FOBT every 5 years, and colonoscopy every 10 years] compared to no screening. We modeled outcomes in terms of cost per quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) over a lifetime time horizon. We performed sensitivity analyses on treatment adherence, test characteristics and costs. Analyses were conducted from the perspective of the Ministry of Health of Ukraine. The base-case lifetime cost-effectiveness analysis showed that all three screening strategies were cost saving compared to no screening, and among the three strategies, colonoscopy every 10 years was the dominant strategy compared to no screening with standard adherence to treatment. When decreased adherence to treatment was modeled, colonoscopy every 10 years was the most cost-effective strategy with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $843 per QALY compared with no screening. Our findings indicate that colorectal cancer screening can save money and improve health compared to no screening in Ukraine. Colonoscopy every 10 years is superior to the other screening modalities evaluated in this study. This knowledge can be used to concentrate efforts on developing a national screening program in Ukraine.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 18 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 18 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 4 22%
Student > Master 3 17%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 11%
Other 1 6%
Librarian 1 6%
Other 3 17%
Unknown 4 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 5 28%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 4 22%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 6%
Unspecified 1 6%
Other 1 6%
Unknown 4 22%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 18 June 2018.
All research outputs
#1,843,493
of 13,099,076 outputs
Outputs from Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation
#33
of 221 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#58,278
of 270,386 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,099,076 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 221 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 270,386 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them