SynthesisThe European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care2018
Cost-effectiveness of cell-free DNA in maternal blood testing for prenatal detection of trisomy 21, 18 and 13: a systematic review.
Synthesis in The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cost-effectiveness of non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) versus direct amniocentesis for screening of fetal chromosomal aneuploidies in Brazilian private health system.Cost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E · 2026Review
- Article
- Lessons (to be) learned from liquid biopsies: assessment of circulating cells and cell-free DNA in cancer and pregnancy-acquired microchimerism.Seminars in immunopathology · 2025Review
- Women's preferences for NIPT as a first-line test in England and France: Challenges for genetic counseling practices.Journal of genetic counseling · 2024Article
- Utility of fetal facial markers on a second trimester genetic sonogram in screening for Down syndrome in a high-risk Thai population.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2022Article
- A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Screening Strategies Involving Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing for Trisomy 21.Frontiers in public health · 2022Article
- Introducing the non-invasive prenatal testing for detection of Down syndrome in China: a cost-effectiveness analysis.BMJ open · 2021Article
- Should pregnant women be charged for non-invasive prenatal screening? Implications for reproductive autonomy and equal access.Journal of medical ethics · 2020Article
- Clinical validation of a novel automated cell-free DNA screening assay for trisomies 21, 13, and 18 in maternal plasma.Prenatal diagnosis · 2019Article
- Clinical application of a contingent screening strategy for trisomies with cell-free DNA: a pilot study.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2019Observational
- Cost-effectiveness of prenatal screening and diagnostic strategies for Down syndrome: A microsimulation modeling analysis.PloS one · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of this paper was to conduct a systematic review of the cost-effectiveness of the analysis of cell-free DNA in maternal blood, often called the non-invasive prenatal test (NIPT), in the prenatal screening of trisomy in chromosomes 21, 18 and 13. MEDLINE, MEDLINE in process, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library were searched in April 2017. We selected: (1) economic evaluations that estimated the costs and detected cases of trisomy 21, 18 or 13; (2) comparisons of prenatal screening with NIPT (universal or contingent strategies) and the usual screening without NIPT, (3) in pregnant women with any risk of foetal anomalies. Studies were reviewed by two researchers. Data were extracted, the methodological quality was assessed and a narrative synthesis was prepared. In total, 12 studies were included, four of them performed in Europe. Three studies evaluated NIPT as a contingent test, three studies evaluated a universal NIPT, and six studies evaluated both. The results are heterogeneous, especially for the contingent NIPT where the results range from NIPT being dominant to a dominated strategy. Universal NIPT was found to be more effective but also costlier than the usual screening, with very high incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. One advantage of screening with NIPT is lower invasive procedure-related foetal losses than with usual screening. In conclusion, the cost-effectiveness of contingent NIPT is uncertain according to several studies, while the universal NIPT is not cost-effective currently.
Indexed as
Identifiers
29249015What 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.