Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28692640›Full record

ArticlePLoS neglected tropical diseases2017

Congenital toxoplasmosis in Austria: Prenatal screening for prevention is cost-saving.

Andrea-Romana Prusa, David C Kasper, Larry Sawers, Evelyn Walter, Michael Hayde, Eileen Stillwaggon

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS neglected tropical diseases, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 46 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
46citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
7.7field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

46 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 96 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Estimating the national seroprevalence ofEpidemiology and infection · 2025
    Article
  6. Diseases Caused by and Behaviors Associated withPathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Factors Associated withPathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. High performance of a novel point-of-care blood test forEmerging microbes & infections · 2021
    Article
  19. Review
  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

6 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Andrea-Romana PrusaDepartment of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, Toxoplasmosis Reference Laboratory, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
David C KasperDepartment of Laboratory Medicine, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Larry SawersDepartment of Economics, American University, Washington DC, United States of America.
Evelyn WalterInstitute for Pharmaeconomic Research, Vienna, Austria.
Michael HaydeDepartment of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, Toxoplasmosis Reference Laboratory, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Eileen StillwaggonDepartment of Economics, Gettysburg College, Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, United States of America.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5196-5270
Medical University of Vienna · ATAmerican University · USGettysburg College · USInstitute for Pharmaeconomic Research · AT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPrimary infection of Toxoplasma gondii during pregnancy can be transmitted to the unborn child and may have serious consequences, including retinochoroiditis, hydrocephaly, cerebral calcifications, encephalitis, splenomegaly, hearing loss, blindness, and death. Austria, a country with moderate seroprevalence, instituted mandatory prenatal screening for toxoplasma infection to minimize the effects of congenital transmission. This work compares the societal costs of congenital toxoplasmosis under the Austrian national prenatal screening program with the societal costs that would have occurred in a No-Screening scenario. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL

findingsWe retrospectively investigated data from the Austrian Toxoplasmosis Register for birth cohorts from 1992 to 2008, including pediatric long-term follow-up until May 2013. We constructed a decision-analytic model to compare lifetime societal costs of prenatal screening with lifetime societal costs estimated in a No-Screening scenario. We included costs of treatment, lifetime care, accommodation of injuries, loss of life, and lost earnings that would have occurred in a No-Screening scenario and compared them with the actual costs of screening, treatment, lifetime care, accommodation, loss of life, and lost earnings. We replicated that analysis excluding loss of life and lost earnings to estimate the budgetary impact alone. Our model calculated total lifetime costs of €103 per birth under prenatal screening as carried out in Austria, saving €323 per birth compared with No-Screening. Without screening and treatment, lifetime societal costs for all affected children would have been €35 million per year; the implementation costs of the Austrian program are less than €2 million per year. Calculating only the budgetary impact, the national program was still cost-saving by more than €15 million per year and saved €258 million in 17 years. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: Cost savings under a national program of prenatal screening for toxoplasma infection and treatment are outstanding. Our results are of relevance for health care providers by supplying economic data based on a unique national dataset including long-term follow-up of affected infants.

Indexed as

Health Care CostsAustriaDecision MakingFemaleHumansInfectious Disease Transmission, VerticalMass ScreeningPregnancyRetrospective StudiesSerologic TestsToxoplasmosis, Congenital

Identifiers

PMID28692640
PMCPMC5503164
OpenAlexW2736265740

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.