ArticleBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2001
Screening for Down's syndrome: effects, safety, and cost effectiveness of first and second trimester strategies.
Article in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2001. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 93 citations in OpenAlex.
- Benefits and harms of antenatal and newborn screening programmes in health economic assessments: the VALENTIA systematic review and qualitative investigation.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2024Pooled it
- The Diagnostic Performance of Nuchal Translucency Alone as a Screening Test for Down Syndrome: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Acta medica Philippina · 2025Article
- Is routine prenatal screening and testing fundamentally incompatible with a commitment to reproductive choice? Learning from the historical context.Medicine, health care, and philosophy · 2021Article
- Screening of Fetal Chromosome Aneuploidies in the First and Second Trimester of 125,170 Iranian Pregnant Women.Iranian journal of public health · 2015Article
- Early amniocentesis as a method of choice in diagnosing gynecological diseases.Acta informatica medica : AIM : journal of the Society for Medical Informatics of Bosnia & Herzegovina : casopis Drustva za medicinsku informatiku BiH · 2013Article
- Article
- Genetic testing in the European Union: does economic evaluation matter?The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2012Article
- Health behaviour modelling for prenatal diagnosis in Australia: a geodemographic framework for health service utilisation and policy development.BMC health services research · 2006Article
- Ultrasound diagnostic schema for the determination of increased risk for chromosomal fetal aneuploidies in the first half of pregnancy.Journal of applied genetics · 2006Article
- [Current situation in prenatal diagnosis].Atencion primaria · 2004Article
- Socioeconomic barriers to informed decisionmaking regarding maternal serum screening for down syndrome: results of the French National Perinatal Survey of 1998.American journal of public health · 2004Article
- Cost effectiveness analysis of intensive versus conventional follow up after curative resection for colorectal cancer.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2004Article
- Screening for Down's syndrome. Antenatal screening has human costs.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2002Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
7 authors at 4 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the effects, safety, and cost effectiveness of antenatal screening strategies for Down's syndrome.
designAnalysis of incremental cost effectiveness.
settingUnited Kingdom.
main outcome measuresNumber of liveborn babies with Down's syndrome, miscarriages due to chorionic villus sampling or amniocentesis, health care costs of screening programme, and additional costs and additional miscarriages per additional affected live birth prevented by adopting a more effective strategy.
resultsCompared with no screening, the additional cost per additional liveborn baby with Down's syndrome prevented was 22 000 pound sterling for measurement of nuchal translucency. The cost of the integrated test was 51 000 pound sterling compared with measurement of nuchal translucency. All other strategies were more costly and less effective, or cost more per additional affected baby prevented. Depending on the cost of the screening test, the first trimester combined test and the quadruple test would also be cost effective options.
conclusionsThe choice of screening strategy should be between the integrated test, first trimester combined test, quadruple test, or nuchal translucency measurement depending on how much service providers are willing to pay, the total budget available, and values on safety. Screening based on maternal age, the second trimester double test, and the first trimester serum test was less effective, less safe, and more costly than these four options.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.