. 2020 Sep 10;13:1499–1512. doi: 10.2147/RMHP.S262171

Table 3.

The Calculated Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratios When Using FIT Yearly vs FIT Every 2-Year, and FOBT Yearly

Author/Technique	C	Q	ICER	Threshold	Optimal Strategy
Sharaf²⁵
FIT yearly	2090	18.7456	−9327	$US 50000	FIT yearly was dominant
FOBT yearly	2187	18.7352	−9327	$US 50000	FIT yearly was dominant
Sharp²⁶
FIT 2-yearly	1443	10.984	563	WHO Recommendation	FIT 2-yearly was cost-effective ^a
FOBT 2-yearly	1434	10.968	563	WHO Recommendation	FIT 2-yearly was cost-effective ^a
Wong²²
FIT yearly	7371	15.5491	−1504	$US 50000	FIT yearly was dominant
FOBT yearly	7845	15.2339	−1504	$US 50000	FIT yearly was dominant
Wong²²
FIT 2-yearly	6606	15.4203	1328	$US 50000	FIT 2-yearly was cost-effective
FOBT 2-yearly	6136	15.0687	1328	$US 50000	FIT 2-yearly was cost-effective
Ladabaum²⁴
FIT yearly	2450	18.747	33167	$US 50000	FIT yearly was cost-effective
FIT 2-year	2251	18.741	33167	$US 50000	FIT yearly was cost-effective

Notes: In this table, for each study, the first row shows the new technique that is compared with the old technique, presented in the second row. The negative ICER indicates that the new technique is less costly and more effective. The positive ICERs refer to those techniques that are more costly and more effective; both numerators and denominators are positive. ^aBased on the context threshold.

Abbreviations: C, costs per person ($PPP); Q, QALYs (quality-adjusted life-year); ICER, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio; FOBT, fecal occult blood testing; FIT, fecal immunochemical testing.