Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27265561›Full record

ArticleThe Milbank quarterly2016

The Use of Economic Evaluation to Inform Newborn Screening Policy Decisions: The Washington State Experience.

Scott D Grosse, John D Thompson, Yao Ding, Michael Glass

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Milbank quarterly, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed
2.4field-weighted citation impact, top 13% of its field
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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 39 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. International Newborn Screening: Where Are We in Saudi Arabia?Journal of epidemiology and global health · 2024
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Early onset sepsis calculator-based management of newborns exposed to maternal intrapartum fever: a cost benefit analysis.Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association · 2019
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Scott D GrosseCenters for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities.
John D ThompsonWashington State Department of Health, Office of Newborn Screening.
Yao DingAssociation of Public Health Laboratories.
Michael GlassWashington State Department of Health, Office of Newborn Screening.
Washington State Department of Health · USAssociation of Public Health Laboratories · USNational Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

policy pointsNewborn screening not only saves lives but can also yield net societal economic benefit, in addition to benefits such as improved quality of life to affected individuals and families. Calculations of net economic benefit from newborn screening include the monetary equivalent of avoided deaths and reductions in costs of care for complications associated with late-diagnosed individuals minus the additional costs of screening, diagnosis, and treatment associated with prompt diagnosis. Since 2001 the Washington State Department of Health has successfully implemented an approach to conducting evidence-based economic evaluations of disorders proposed for addition to the state-mandated newborn screening panel. CONTEXT: Economic evaluations can inform policy decisions on the expansion of newborn screening panels. This article documents the use of cost-benefit models in Washington State as part of the rule-making process that resulted in the implementation of screening for medium-chain acyl-CoA dehydrogenase (MCAD) deficiency and 4 other metabolic disorders in 2004, cystic fibrosis (CF) in 2006, 15 other metabolic disorders in 2008, and severe combined immune deficiency (SCID) in 2014.

methodsWe reviewed Washington State Department of Health internal reports and spreadsheet models of expected net societal benefit of adding disorders to the state newborn screening panel. We summarize the assumptions and findings for 2 models (MCAD and CF) and discuss them in relation to findings in the peer-reviewed literature.

findingsThe MCAD model projected a benefit-cost ratio of 3.4 to 1 based on assumptions of a 20.0 percentage point reduction in infant mortality and a 13.9 percentage point reduction in serious developmental disability. The CF model projected a benefit-cost ratio of 4.0-5.4 to 1 for a discount rate of 3%-4% and a plausible range of 1-2 percentage point reductions in deaths up to age 10 years.

conclusionsThe Washington State cost-benefit models of newborn screening were broadly consistent with peer-reviewed literature, and their findings of net benefit appear to be robust to uncertainty in parameters. Public health newborn screening programs can develop their own capacity to project expected costs and benefits of expansion of newborn screening panels, although it would be most efficient if this capacity were shared among programs.

Indexed as

Quality-Adjusted Life YearsCost-Benefit AnalysisCystic FibrosisEarly Medical InterventionHealth PolicyHumansInfant, NewbornModels, EconomicNeonatal ScreeningOutcome Assessment, Health CareWashingtoncost-benefit analysiscystic fibrosiseconomicsMCAD deficiencyneonatal screening

Identifiers

PMID27265561
PMCPMC4911729
OpenAlexW2414689093

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.