Table 4.
Predicted choice probabilities for the different screening alternatives with varying scenarios for the nanopill
| Screening alternative | Sensitivity | Specificity | Complication rate | Frequency | Predicted probability (95% CI) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| No screening |
- |
- |
- |
- |
42.7% (41.2% to 44.3%) |
| Colonoscopya |
90% |
90% |
100/10000 |
10 years |
39.2% (36.8% to 41.6%) |
| Sigmoidoscopyb |
70% |
90% |
10/10000 |
5 years |
37.5% (35.2% to 39.8%) |
| iFOBTc |
80% |
90% |
None |
2 years |
75.8% (73.9% to 77.7%) |
| 1: Nanopilld |
100% |
100% |
1/10000 |
Annual |
78.8% (77.0% to 80.5%) |
| 2: Nanopilld |
100% |
100% |
1/10000 |
2 years |
81.0% (79.4% to 82.6%) |
| 3: Nanopilld |
100% |
90% |
1/10000 |
Annual |
77.3% (75.4% to 79.2%) |
| 4: Nanopilld |
90% |
100% |
1/10000 |
Annual |
73.8% (71.7% to 75.7%) |
| 5: Nanopilld |
95% |
95% |
1/10000 |
Annual |
75.6% (73.7% to 77.4%) |
| 6: Nanopilld | 90% | 95% | 1/10000 | 2 years | 75.6% (73.7% to 77.4%) |
aDiet plus laxatives, long tube with sedation; bEnemas, short tube; cNo preparation, stool; dLaxatives, pill.