scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question

Answers from top 10 papers

More filters
Papers (10)Insight
There were no levels of sensitivity and specificity for which stool DNA testing would be cost-effective at its current cost of $350 per test.
Assuming fecal DNA testing sensitivities of 65% for CRC and 40% for large polyp, and 95% specificity, a screening interval of 2 years and a test cost of USD $195 would be required to make F-DNA comparable with COLO.
Screening with the stool DNA test would be cost-effective at a per-test cost of $40 to $60 for stool DNA testing every 3 years, depending on the simulation model used.
For family testing of siblings the DNA strategy is not cost saving because of the costs of the DNA test (additional cost per case detected 200 pounds).
The HPV DNA testing every five years is a cost-effective strategy (Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio (ICER): USD$44/YLS) if the cost per test is under USD$31.
If a DNA test were used instead of liver biopsy, the cost would be reduced to an estimated US$3954-US$4410 per case.
If the DNA test cost were to reduce by 40% to 60 pounds or, if in the phenotypic model, those with initially normal iron indices were retested twice instead of once, the DNA strategy would be the cheaper one.
The use of DNA testing is cost-effective and allows for efficient cascade testing.
If the cost of the test were to reduce from 100 pounds to 60 pounds, the DNA strategy would be the cheaper one.
The cost per women screened would be about one-fifth, compared with universal DNA testing, if the DNA test were 20 times the cost of the Integrated test.