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

Table 7.

The Calculated Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratios When Using Colonoscopy vs FIT and FOBT

Author/Technique	C	Q	ICER	Threshold	Optimal Strategy
Dinh²³
Colonoscopy 10-year	2384.3	15.79	17805	$US 50000	Colonoscopy 10-year was cost-effective ^a
FIT yearly	2028.2	15.77	17805	$US 50000	Colonoscopy 10-year was cost-effective ^a
Ladabaum²⁴
Colonoscopy 10-year	4248	18.746	443778	$US 50000	Colonoscopy 10-year was dominated
FIT 2-year	2251	18.741	443778	$US 50000	Colonoscopy 10-year was dominated
Sharaf²⁵
Colonoscopy 10-year	2871	18.7443	75165	$US 50000	Colonoscopy 10-year was dominated
FOBT yearly	2187	18.7352	75165	$US 50000	Colonoscopy 10-year was dominated
Wong²²
Colonoscopy 10-year	6911	15.3586	−7490	$US 50000	Colonoscopy 10-year was dominant
G-FOBT yearly	7845	15.2339	−7490	$US 50000	Colonoscopy 10-year was dominant
Kingsley²⁸
Colonoscopy 10-year	2474	19.517	78818	$US 50000	Colonoscopy 10-year was dominated
FIT yearly	1607	19.506	78818	$US 50000	Colonoscopy 10-year was dominated

Notes: In this table, for each study, the first row shows the new technique that is compared with the old technique, written 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; G-FOBT, guaiac fecal occult blood testing; FIT, fecal immunochemical testing.