Skip to main content
Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

< Back to Article

Table 1.

Test characteristics of the screening tests used in the model.

More »

Table 1 Expand

Table 2.

Utility weights used in the model.

More »

Table 2 Expand

Table 3.

Cost estimates used in the model (2013 Canadian dollars).

More »

Table 3 Expand

Fig 1.

Discounted total costs and discounted QALYs gained, per 1,000 participants, of the gFOBT and FIT screening strategies compared to no screening.

QALY: quality adjusted life year; gFOBT: guaiac fecal occult blood test; FIT: fecal immunochemical test. Current screening strategy in Ontario: biennial gFOBT, between age 50–74. Strategies are varied by age at starting screening, age at stopping screening, screening interval, and FIT cut-off level. The cost-effective strategies are connected by the efficient frontier. Costs (expressed in 2013 Canadian dollars) and QALYs are discounted by 3% per year.

More »

Fig 1 Expand

Fig 2.

Efficient frontiers for different levels of colonoscopy capacity.

Costs and QALYs gained per 1,000 participants, compared to no screening. QALY: quality adjusted life year; gFOBT: guaiac fecal occult blood test; FIT: fecal immunochemical test; Col/year: number of colonoscopies required per 1,000 participants per year. Strategies are varying by age at starting screening, age at stopping screening, screening interval, and FIT cut-off level. For each level of available colonoscopy capacity (maximal 17, 20, 30, 40 colonoscopies per 1,000 participants per year and unrestricted colonoscopy capacity) the cost-effective strategies are connected by their respective efficient frontier. The text boxes beside each frontier present the screening strategy (test, age range, interval and colonoscopy

More »

Fig 2 Expand

Table 4.

Overview of the current gFOBT screening strategy in Ontario, and efficient FIT screening strategies, compared to no screening*.

Outcomes per 1,000 participants.

More »

Table 4 Expand

Table 5.

Undiscounted intermediate model outcomes per 1,000 participants, compared to no screening.

More »

Table 5 Expand