Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22152833›Full record

Trial reportThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners2011

Screening for sickle cell and thalassaemia in primary care: a cost-effectiveness study.

Stirling Bryan, Elizabeth Dormandy, Tracy Roberts, Anthony Ades, Pelham Barton, Ariadna Juarez-Garcia, Lazaros Andronis, Jonathan Karnon, Theresa M Marteau

Abstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Screening for sickle cell and thalassaemia in primary care: a cost-effectiveness study.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2012
    Article
  10. Commissioning maternity care: little room for manoeuvre?The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2011
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Stirling BryanHealth Economics Unit, University of Birmingham. stirling.bryan@ubc.ca
Elizabeth Dormandy
Tracy Roberts
Anthony Ades
Pelham Barton
Ariadna Juarez-Garcia
Lazaros Andronis
Jonathan Karnon
Theresa M Marteau

Funding

Department of Health 03/02/03
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHaemoglobinopathies, including sickle cell disease and thalassaemia (SCT), are inherited disorders of haemoglobin. Antenatal screening for SCT rarely occurs before 10 weeks of pregnancy.

aimTo explore the cost-effectiveness of offering SCT screening in a primary care setting, during the pregnancy confirmation visit. DESIGN AND

settingA model-based cost-effectiveness analysis of inner-city areas with a high proportion of residents from ethnic minority groups.

methodComparison was made of three SCT screening approaches: 'primary care parallel' (primary care screening with test offered to mother and father together); 'primary care sequential (primary care screening with test offered to the mother and then the father only if the mother is a carrier); and 'midwife care' (sequential screening at the first midwife consultation). The model was populated with data from the SHIFT (Screening for Haemoglobinopathies In First Trimester) trial and other sources.

resultsCompared to midwife care, primary care sequential had a higher NHS cost of £34,000 per 10,000 pregnancies (95% confidence interval [CI] = £15,000 to £51,000) and an increase of 2623 women screened (95% CI: 1359 to 4495), giving a cost per additional woman screened by 10 weeks of £13. Primary care parallel was dominated by primary care sequential, with both higher costs and fewer women screened.

conclusionThe policy judgement is whether an earlier opportunity for informed reproductive choice has a value of at least £13. Further work is required to understand the value attached to earlier informed reproductive choices.

Indexed as

Abortion, InducedAnemia, Sickle CellCluster AnalysisCost-Benefit AnalysisCounselingFemaleHumansLondonPregnancyPregnancy Complications, HematologicPrenatal DiagnosisPrimary Health CareThalassemia

Identifiers

PMID22152833
PMCPMC3177130

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.